Tim Rohwer?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator. I received some information from Senator Harkin's office yesterday and I, obviously, wanted your comments. He says that $1.5 billion is included for Iowa in that Senate stimulus package. Is that kind of the figure your office has heard? I noticed that as far as housing projects, there's only, like, about $38 million, and that's mostly for home funding and homelessness prevention.
GRASSLEY: But that's twice what he had in a press release or an interview that he gave a week or ten days ago that there would be $800 million in it for Iowa. So now it's gone up to $1.5 billion?
QUESTION: Yes. That's what he brought yesterday -- what I received yesterday.
GRASSLEY: Well, let's put it this way. My answer to your question, I don't know whether that figure is right or not. And I think Iowa ought to qualify the same way other states qualify. But you still have the same problem with any figure you throw out for the total bill the way it is. Is it spending, or is it stimulus? Whatever is stimulus, we ought to get out there and get it spent. But if we're going to give money, let's say, to Title I -- there's going to be a lot of money in this for Title I -- so you're going to bring more kids into the educational program Title I and hire a bunch of teachers for them and then after two years, are you going to fire those teachers?
If you were running a local school board, that wouldn't be a very wise thing to do. And I had school board representatives from Iowa in my state yesterday representing all the school boards of Iowa as they come out here once a year. And, you know -- and I said that to them because I said you've got to realize what President Obama -- not Chuck Grassley -- is saying.
President Obama said to Chairman Miller that none of this money that's in this bill is going to be in the baseline for his next budget. So you're going to fire all these teachers after one year? And all the school board could say for me, well, we'll have to hope that you continue the spending.
But -- and Congress could overrule the president. But I've seen so many presidents' budgets be not exactly ratified by the Congress, but probably 95 percent ratified by the Congress. And so, you know, it just isn't going to happen.
So, you know, it's -- it's a precaution. So in other words, what -- whatever's in figures that Senator Harkin gave you that is spending as opposed is to stimulus, then it's going to -- it's going to spend more money in two years but then you're going lay off all those teachers later on? You know?
QUESTION: Uh-huh.
GRASSLEY: I have to be here to help make those decisions. I'm not going to overpromise people.
Jane Norman?
QUESTION: Senator, maybe I missed this, but is this Republican substitute entirely written? When will it be offered? Is this being offered today, or are you still...
GRASSLEY: Let's see. I left -- I think it'll be offered late today. It might be -- it might be offered tomorrow. There's still some -- in order to satisfy some other members of our caucus, it may have to be rejiggered a little bit. So I can't promise you for sure. But it's just about done.
QUESTION: And is this mortgage provision the main component of this substitute?
GRASSLEY: Yes. And I think it includes the Isakson provisions for having a tax credit for buying a home, too.
QUESTION: And so -- there's also this movement that Senator Nelson and Senator Collins are leading to cut money from the existing bill. Are you part of that?
GRASSLEY: Well, if they're -- I'm surely sympathetic to it. I'm not in negotiations with them. But the extent to which -- am I -- if you and I are talking the same language, they're cutting out what I call spending as opposed to stimulus. Is that right?
QUESTION: Yes.
GRASSLEY: Well, I...
QUESTION: (Inaudible), yes.
GRASSLEY: I would surely be sympathetic to that, without a doubt.
QUESTION: OK. And if I could ask one more...
GRASSLEY: And is that -- is that Nelson of Nebraska?
QUESTION: Correct. Nelson of Nebraska.
GRASSLEY: OK.
QUESTION: Yes. And Senator Collins.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Will they want to take out, like, out of the list I see here, $350 million for Agriculture Department computers, $75 million for smoking cessation, things like this?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: They've got a whole list.
GRASSLEY: Yes. There's -- you know, I'm -- by the way, computers are probably a one-time expenditure. So I'm not sure but that might be considered stimulus. But on the other hand, medical -- what do you call it? Computerizing medical records in this bill are stimulus, but only 3 percent of it's going to be spent in the first two years; the other 97 percent is going to be spent over the next ten years. So in the case of computers or these other things you mentioned, those ought to be considered in the regular appropriation process.
QUESTION: And what kind of timeline do you see for all this discussion? I mean, you've got the Senate working on this. You're talking about a very lengthy and complicated conference committee process. How long before this thing can reach some sort of final stage?
GRASSLEY: Oh, you'll have a bill to the president -- you'll have a signing ceremony before two weeks are out. But, you know, there's a lot of things you can wonder about Senator Reid when he says something, you know, how definitive is it. But on this, you can really believe him. We're going to finish this Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
So Monday and Tuesday and maybe even Wednesday of next week or over the weekend included, they can work in conference to work it out and get it assigned and to the president by a week from Friday. Or maybe not signed by the president, but get it done in Congress by a week from Friday or Saturday or Sunday.
QUESTION: And do you think that's a good thing or do you think you should be taking longer with it?
GRASSLEY: I think -- I think, on stimulus, it needs to be done quickly. And I can buy things that are pretty easily defined as spending money right now, shovel-ready, things that are going -- that wouldn't be done otherwise. But this ongoing spending stuff beyond the year 2010 needs the weeks and months that an appropriation process gives consideration to things. That needs to be done that way. And so to the extent that those are being hastened through, that's not good.
OK. I've gone through the entire list. Anybody I leave out or anybody want to follow up?
QUESTION: This is Christinia from the Hawkeye.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Go ahead, Christinia.
QUESTION: Just one quick question for you. There's been some concern here among our roads and public works department that the stimulus package will be another way for the state to kind of hoard money or somehow prevent local agencies from getting it.
Do you believe that those concerns are valid, or are there measures to ensure...
GRASSLEY: No.
QUESTION: ... that it gets...
GRASSLEY: Well, I don't have anything that really guarantees that X number of dollars get down to Des Moines County or surrounding counties there. But I can tell you that the philosophy behind this, when it goes out, is you -- what's the -- let me ask my staff. Use it or lose it is the saying that's in -- that's behind this bill. In other words, use it or lose it. Spend it in the two years. So that's going to keep the Department of Transportation and aims (ph) from hoarding it, as you said. Now, maybe it wouldn't keep -- maybe that doesn't -- maybe what you're really asking is what's the certainty of that flowing down to the counties and to the cities.
I don't have a specific answer for you. But I did real policy in news -- newspapers within the last week or ten days about the policy that the State Department of Transportation is going to use. So somewhere, it's out there. You ought to be able to find something that would say, you know, that probably X number of dollars would go to Des Moines County and the Burlington and other communities down there.
Somebody else wanted to jump in.
QUESTION: Joe Morton here with Omaha World Herald.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you, you mentioned a couple of (inaudible) you were talking about if they were going to get two or three moderate Republicans to jump on this and then also the Nelson- Collins proposal.
I'm just wondering, I mean, if what they're talking about doing, stripping out some of this spending, you know, quote, unquote spending and replacing it with stimulus and that gives the three Republicans you mentioned and Nelson on board, is that a substantial improvement to the bill, or is that just sort of putting a fig leaf on this?
GRASSLEY: No. Well, it depends on the amount of spending they're taking out. But it would be, in my judgment, for every dollar that that is done with, it improves it, from Chuck Grassley's perspective. But don't ask me until we get through the process whether it's enough for me to vote for it or not.
QUESTION: Ballpark, how much do you think they would need take out of this, you know, whether it's smoking cessation or whatever, to make it you know substantial improvement?
GRASSLEY: Well, things that you mentioned, obviously, ought to go. What's a little more difficult is the extent to which state aid is a big chunk of the money and how much of that state aid is really needed to keep the states from raising taxes or cutting out employees as opposed to adding programs that are -- adding programs that are -- that wouldn't otherwise be spent on this year and would be an obligation for the next 50 years.
So I guess I'd have to say to you, it still depends on the content that remains. Spending obligations forever more is a key factor that as much of that that we get out, the better chance it's going to get bipartisan support. And, also, the better extent it is to be stimulative because we're talking about spending money the next two years to make an immediate impact. We aren't talking about is computerized medical records a good thing or a bad thing. It is a good thing.
But when you're only going to spend 3 percent of $12 billion in the first two years, is that stimulative? Well, that 3 percent is stimulative. But why are we sticking in the other 97 percent?
QUESTION: Senator, kind of asking that same question a different way, if you get your mortgage amendment in there, substitute, whatever you want to call it, you're not stepping to the sidelines. You're still going to be in there cutting out spending as opposed to stimulus. There's no ceasefire on your part?
GRASSLEY: Yes. But here's the one thing that works to our advantage. Either Democrats support us and help us get a bipartisan housing portion in there. In order for them to be able to face their criticism of this bill being a big spending bill, they're going to have to take a lot of this spending stuff out. But we still might end up with the same size package. Now, there is -- I've heard that Senator Nelson of Nebraska, working with Collins, has taken the view that he wants to take that spending out as opposed to stimulus but he wants to take that amount of money and put it over in stimulus, which means if you took $200 million out, you still end up with 200 -- 900 billion, then you'd have $200 billion in stimulus instead of spending.
QUESTION: Yes.
GRASSLEY: That still might be a figure that, for a lot of people, they say, well, you don't really need that much stimulus. Maybe we ought to have a $700 billion bill instead of a $900 billion bill. And then it ought to be -- because if the purpose of it is stimulus and you're going pass a $900 billion bill that's only got a half a trillion in it for stimulus, and you take out the other $400 billion that's spending, then maybe you're still going to be stimulus at $500 billion. And so a lot of fiscal conservatives are going to say, well, then if you don't need any more than that for stimulus, why would you spend more. So they might say, well, I'm going vote against the bill because it's only -- it only need to be a half a trillion dollars instead of $900 billion. So, you know, that's a factor, too, of whether you vote yes or no on the final package.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, what did you think of the whole Tom Daschle matter and how that was handled?
GRASSLEY: Well, it doesn't bring into -- it -- the main focus there should not be on Daschle. Now, I'm not saying I think that the fact he didn't pay the taxes and when he decided to pay them is a major factor and it may distract from whether he ought to be HHS secretary. But it shouldn't distract from the fact that he was very qualified to be HHS secretary.
So then you get back to what I think is the issue. The issue isn't his taxes per se or Daschle per se, it's the vetting process of this president. You have a president who one day after the election was going to crank up and have his administration going on January the 20th. And so they set up a vetting process with just gigantic amounts of information that you had to submit if you wanted to work for this administration because they were going to be so cautious about making sure they didn't -- they had a high ethics standard, that they didn't have a revolving door situation.
GRASSLEY: And you end up with Geithner and you end up with, now, can you believe it, a woman that pulled out because they didn't pay a thousand dollars worth of taxes as opposed to man, Geithner and the other ones, $40,000 and $144,000. So it almost looks like they have a different standard for then than women in this process of not paying taxes.
But the bottom line of it is the vetting process wasn't working and they wanted to get cranked up so fast to get things up and running they screwed up. So I think you better blame where the buck stops, the president and his vetting process, and not necessarily put all the blame on Geithner and Daschle or this woman that pulled out. And then you also get into this issue of not just the vetting process and paying taxes but you get into this one -- one big news day of signing the most sweeping ethics rules of a new administration, and the next day asking for a waiver for somebody to be deputy secretary of defense who just, six months ago, was lobbying for several years for the biggest defense contractor. That's Lynn of defense. And so to what extent is the rhetoric of their campaign squared with what they're practice is in office? Those are the issues that you've got to be thinking about, Kerry, when you think about Daschle. Daschle's a small example of what's a bigger problem, it looks like to me.
Anybody else? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you think expect that to be, perhaps, an ongoing problem until they get the rest of his top management people in?
GRASSLEY: No, I think they've been burned enough that they're going to take a second look at everybody else that's making application.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Anybody else. OK.
QUESTION: Senator, another argument on Senator Daschle that has to do with the complexity of the tax code, too. Some people say he was a victim of the tax code. You're the master of the taxes there. What's your opinion on that?
GRASSLEY: Well, it still effects everybody else, and you've got to look at it from this standpoint then. Everybody deals with the complicated tax code, and it is too complicated. And I probably helped make a more complicated. Every member of Congress has helped make it more complicated as you try to do things. But let me tell you that everybody -- every Joe Blow and Joe the Plumber and Mary Smith and all those people are no different than Daschle. The only thing is Daschle had the capability of hiring the best of tax attorneys and he, obviously, didn't. Or if he did, you know the extent to which he was playing games -- and I think no reason to believe that this is not the truth -- that he probably intended to pay them. But, you know, you wonder about that when sometimes -- sometimes -- how do you say it? Sometimes, you just get hit with these things of how they are. By the way, there's headlines in the Washington Post that says "Victims of tax code? Not so fast, nominee trouble was preventable, experts say." Then, you know, the other thing was that, in Daschle's case, he knew something was wrong? June of 2008 about the car but he didn't say anything to anybody until January 2009.
Anybody else?
QUESTION: If I could ask one for follow-up. Was this session with him in the Finance Committee on Monday really tough on him? What was that like?
GRASSLEY: He was only there 15 minutes, and it was not tough. I was there for all of it. Well, we met an hour before he came in, but it was not -- it may have been tough on him, but nobody was tough on him. I mean, it may have been -- he may have been uncomfortable is what I should say, but I don't think anybody there said anything to make him uncomfortable.
It was just the situation he put himself in that made him uncomfortable. But just so you know that Grassley and Baucus, for eight years, have had a professional way of approaching this. And I can't give you names of Bush nominees that run into tax trouble. And in the case of Geithner and in the case of Daschle, we called them in and said, here's what we know. They probably knew it, too. Do you want to go ahead or not. If you want to go ahead, Senator Grassley believes that the public's business ought to be public, and it's going to have to be transparent. Chuck Grassley took the same position with a couple nominees of -- I don't know whether it was the first administration or the second administration, Bush nominees -- and they came in and we found the same tax problems they had and we said, you know, like we did to Geithner and Daschle, do you want to go forward or not. And I think in one case, we advised them not to go forward, and they decided not to go forward. And nobody knew anything about it because they withdrew their nomination. But if they decided to go forward, we would have had to make it the same way as we did for Geithner and for Daschle. And I think I need to say there there's laws and rules that apply here because which said we use a professional approach, it abides strictly by Rule 29 of the standing rules of the Senate.
OK. Anybody else? OK. Thank you all very much.