Iowa Press; 1305; Senator Charles Grassley

But I will press 13 0 5 with Senator Grassley taped on November 17th 1985. Oh. A. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television and. The state of Iowa so close to God and so far from Washington where a Congress remains deadlocked in its deliberations over farm policy a budget. Indeed the direction of the nation's future. And in the middle are Iowa's congressional representatives. Tonight we talk with Iowa senior senator Charles Grassley. This is the Sunday November 17th edition of my approach here is being born.

Good evening the Senate next week will once again try to hammer out a farm bill that fits the federal budget meets the expectations of the constituencies of farm state lawmakers and meets the approval of the White House. When that's done nearby lie the issues of what to do about the beleaguered Farm Credit system the federal deficit tax reform and a host of other issues quite squarely in the middle of these issues are farm state Republicans especially those facing election next year. Among them Iowa Senator Charles Grassley who joins us this evening questioning Senator Grassley of reporters David yaps and of the Des Moines Register and John the core value of the Burlington Hawkeye and the Harris newspaper's Jon Heder Grassley Vice President Bush event here in Iowa this weekend I think you've spent some time with him. Supposedly he's been mending fences do you think his visit to Iowa is going to be any help to you and your forthcoming campaign. No but I think it might be a help to the general issue of helping farmers and I think if

he can carry back that message he said he got loud and clear and he didn't do much talking. He did a lot of listening that was not only his impression that he gave to us in his speech last night but it's also the impression that the newspapers reported this morning about his speech so it seemed to me like if he takes that message back and he sees a president every day and he talks about the speech fair then I it might help us get a decent farm bill that we wouldn't otherwise get. What mainly was the message you think you got that the farmers of Iowa resent the insensitivity towards agriculture shown by the White House. Senator Haven't you guys been getting a message to him. What what good does it do to have a vice president come out here and you know go around to visit farms and he gets him some television times and newspaper stories but. But practically speaking. You know aren't Iowans telling them the same things when all of you go out there to Washington.

I think our message has gotten through you know at any level we can talk to people including recently Bach was in my office I gave him the same point of view there you'd expect me to give up. I believe our message is understood I believe our message is getting through but our message is not responded to and the reason it is not responded to is because of the ideological Stonewall within the White House of looking to how bad the situation is. And to whether or not there ought to be a response even if they admit it's a bad situation who's responsible for that stone wall is that John block or should somebody in the White House who I put you effect go on for as well keeping the president from acting the way I'm sure you feel that he would if he had used I think Don Regan would be the top person that would stop that he is in charge now in the White House. I don't think there's a message gets to the president unless Don Regan wants it to get there. And my understanding is that Don Regan does not really have an understanding of agriculture that's based upon people who have known Don Regan over a long period of time a senator because of the miscommunication here we're talking about messages

getting to the right people at the right time. Do you sense a growing resentment among the farm state voters toward the Republican administration and Republicans in general. The answer to that is not Republicans in general but the Republican administration. Yes but I think that it may be more isolated to Iowa than we'd want to admit now generally throughout the Midwest. There is a reduction in the president's popularity. But no places to the point it is within the state of Iowa and that I think is related to the fact that first of all we do have good Republican representation we did support the president. So people feel a little more let down and then secondly I think the economic situation here is worse in Iowa than maybe it is in the nation as a whole and I'm not. Not that it's not going to be that way throughout the nation but the Iowa is leading the nation in the downturn in the farm economy that's been going on now for about two years.

Senator I just I made a list of some of the problems that that Iowa faces. We got the worst economy since the Great Depression. Record high federal deficits which the Reagan administration promised to do something about. The president told an export the farmer joke. David Stockman had his statements about. Farmers made this problem for themselves. President vetoed an emergency farm bill. They opposed a free market farm bill and they have no bill on that on the farm credit system they allowed. Why shouldn't the voters throw the Republicans out of office. If you were talking about an administration a didn't respond the answer to that is yes but generally you think of a vote against a people as being against those who commit it now. Most of those things that you list there most Republicans and I will as well as Democrats and I will most Republicans in the upper Midwest would have been on a different side of the issue than the present States was like for instance in my case I have been for an across the board budget freeze which if it had been adopted three years ago when I first suggested it we would have a balanced budget today.

I voted for that emergency farm bill that you're talking about. I think mice position on both the Finance Committee in the Budget Committee well would show that I've been there trying to get the interest rates down getting the value of the dollar down and having the United States have a tough stance on foreign trade. Three years before the administration I word all that up to the fact that there's a problem and I wouldn't vote for the individual they don't necessarily vote for the party. How do how do I will voters since the president isn't on the ballot. How do I will voters get the message so to speak to Washington if they don't vote against guys like you. Well they are going to send any different message by sending somebody new to Washington because that person cannot speak any louder than Chuck Grassley or Jim Leach or Tom talky or Jim Ross Lightfoot. Republicans who are already in the Congress now incorporating that senator even though according to Congressional Quarterly I believe you support the administration about 74 percent of the time is that a correct figure if Criminal Court only says that I would say it is accurate. It's fairly

high reasonably high now you mean. You differ on defense and on foreign policy and yes I would add that let me suggest to you that it's probably basically on economic issues in the farm problem that there's almost disagreement with the president on where generally I think the people the United States would support the rest of the president's program and it's always economic issues. We have been out in the front as farm state Republicans expressing a different point of view. You know I separated from the administration back in April of 19 81 the first time on a budget issue that the president was going back on his word from my standpoint when I was the only Republican from a farm state that voted against the budget resolution. Senator those who say that that's exactly what the problem is that you're such a pain in the neck to those people over there at the White House and particularly in the Pentagon that they tend to take it out on Iowa that you know that Sam Rayburn used to say to get along you've got to go log in is Chuck Grassley who's not a guy

that goes along. He stands up on his own hind legs and tells of how do you get that feeling that they're after they take it out on the rest of us because you you cause a little trouble. I have no evidence of that and I think the place that you would want to look for evidence like that would be the extent to which. The contracts that I was competing for with other states. We didn't get and we are low in defense contracts yes we always have been and we always have been so you make that clear now I think. There again you want to look at what do Iowans expect of their representatives. I don't think I would expect a rubber stamp to be elected. I want to work with the president but I don't want for the president. And there is a distinct difference. You sad a little bit ago that you didn't think Bush would help you and your campaign did you mean to imply that you don't need any help that day. It's going well enough. Well I think I say that from two standpoints one right now. The extent to which the Reagan administration is not well respected in Iowa. I don't want to be inviting him here I

would like to have the president come though not for support for me I'd like to have the president come because I think it be a good thing if he'd see how people feel about it. I think he's insulated in the White House. Secondly you know I think Iowans. I think I've established a record you know of the independents and that I want to run on that record. I want to be judged on what I do and separate apart from my support or nonsupport for the administration. The center has are elected to take the message from Iowa to Washington that's one of the jobs of an elected representative and if this is a ministration is in disarray on foreign policy isn't that reflect badly on your performance and the performance of other Republican members of Congress from I don't know because that's a process of government we go when they're attacked as independent agents trustees for the people representatives of the people not only to vote but also to express that view where needs to be expressed but the bottom line and what we ought to be measured by is not how somebody else listens to our point of view and the executive branch of government

but by how our colleagues listen and respond to us and I think that you will see there a record by Iowa Republicans not just Chuck Grassley but other Republicans well look at the reputations that Tom talky and Cooper Evans and Jim Leach of us stablish. And the same way for my activity on defense spending my activity on speaking for agriculture. We've been jumping on the executive department cavity but the Republicans control the Senate and how much of the short stake that I was getting is responsibility of Senate Leader Bob Dole I know you've differed with him just recently over over his five bell that you feel which would shut out the Iowa Court in 5 and then when the five The question isn't what Bob Dole's trying to do for agriculture because he is trying to do a lot for agriculture The thing is he's trying to do for agriculture everything from the wheat farmer and what we're trying to establish is parity for the corn farmer for generally feed

grains for I was economy and what he's proposing would be an improvement for wheat farmers 86 or over 85 but for every other commodity not just feed grains but rice cotton peanuts and everything else it would be worse in 86 and 85 so what we're trying to do and if we can do this get Bob Dole to see that is plain is unfair for feed grains. Then we'll come out of it. All right and it will be to the credit of Bob Dole if he listens to us. So your problem vanished isn't just one of straightening out Don Regan over at the White House you've got to try to straighten out your own Senate well let's suggest here that Bob Dole doesn't understand agriculture the only thing is he's got more sympathy to wheat than he does to corn when and when we we've got. Good representation tomorrow morning there will be a meeting in Dahl's office on a week. I mean we vs corne as an example. We hope to get that message through that corn is being unfairly treated and it's not good for the political future of Bob Dole to think in terms of that what's what's the

bottom line on the farm bill what do you ultimately expect to see happen on that. Well first of all let me say I'd like to see a four year freeze of target prices if we get less than that out of a Senate it means we'll probably end up with a three year freeze of target prices as a compromise. Can you get a bill that the president will veto. Well let me suggest regardless of the specifics of it the president's probably going get a bill with or without Bob Dole's cutting it more than he wants to spend. But whether it's Bob Dole's figures or my figures whether it's good for weed or good for corn I don't think the president can veto any farm bill given to him number one because of the message Bush is supposed to take back. Bush's credibility will be on the line. Number two we do revert automatically under present law to the 1949 legislation that is street times more expensive and more red tape regimented in its approach then anything that will say in the present. So I don't think the president can veto it. Is that also going to be the scenario on bailing out the Farm Credit system that the whatever Congress comes up with the president can't afford politically to veto.

I wasn't suggesting in my last response that the president could couldn't afford politically not to veto it although that is part of the factor I'm suggesting for budgetary reasons a president can veto the farm bill because the alternative is more expensive. In regard to Farm Credit system it's very difficult to answer your question because it's only been in the last 60 days that there's been any settling of judgment that even anything needs to be done. As far as the White House is concerned it's only two weeks since a make it made a decision something needed to be done but that something is undefined at this point so I don't know how to judge how they will respond to it. I think that if we're going to get anything really good done for the credit problems of farmers I'm not talking just about the farm credit system that the Congress is going to have to really show the lead in this area because I don't think we're going to get the administration out in front on the farm credit issue like we have on the farm bill. And so we're going to have to test them. You've been out in front for about a year now and the farm credit problem I think on this program if I remember right a year ago you raised the specter

of the farm credit system being in financial trouble. Now that has been borne out. Weren't you able to get that message across to anyone but us. The answer to that is no when the reason for it is we had all of the big waves in the Farm Credit system. And when I say big wigs you saw their salaries where they get paid between 160000 all the way up to 250000 dollars a year. They were saying they don't need any help and our credibility was versus theirs now our credibility has been improved as a result of their saying since Labor Day they need help. But that really delighted for about six months ago you mentioned earlier your support buying time support for a balanced budget. What about this Gramm Gladman effort to lead to supposedly balance the budget in some future time if that have no support and isn't going anywhere. The answer is yes it now has my support because they have included defense in it originally for defense was set out for special treatment just like

Social Security defense is now included I think the fact that we have conservatives as well as Senator Kennedy we have 75 out of the. Hundred I mean hundred senators voting. I think that there's a consensus that something needs to be done we have the Democrat House of Representatives passing a Gramm-Rudman And I think as time goes on we can't walk away from it. Now the story now is that now that you have put to Fanchon that the president's going to veto it because he doesn't want defense. Well to heck with the president in regard to defense because he's been out there too long and his credibility is lacking. There's been too many horror stories in defense and now those horror stories are no longer just horror stories. We have Senator Goldwater and Senator Nunn saying the Defense Department is broke it must be fixed. What about your credibility on this a couple weeks ago the Democratic state chairman here and I lied to Davis told us that while you have made yourself a reputation for going after $700 Hamish and the like you still always in the end end up voting for big defense budget and we got the impression that that's a

line that the Democrats are going to use against you in the coming campaign. How do you respond. Well let let them use that I think the record that I made in May after three years of hard work leading the battle on the Senate floor to cut the defense budget by 17 billion dollars. And Senator Hatfield said that the first time in his years in the Senate that he remembers that the defense budget was was cut. On the Senate floor I think speaks for itself. I delivered on that 51 to 40 vote I fought the president calling from Europe to wayward senators we had Vice President Bush in the chair to vote to break a tie if he was needed and we had Weinberger on the Hill lobbying senators and we had every defense contractor in the country calling in saying don't vote for it after 25 years. Finally what Eisenhower warned warned about the military industrial complex controlling defense policy in this country. We broke it. If there's any one man seeds of bureaucracy and deal with a bureaucracy it never wants to get from the Congress and never wants to get its budget cut. That's the worst negative signal

that can be sent and we send it and the president is getting a lot less on defense than he ever he wanted. And we have turned around the budget policy of the Reagan administration through that one vote. And I think that establishes that my hard work after three years is paid off. Why don't you go with that approach in balancing the federal budget as opposed to the Gramm-Rudman approach the Gramm-Rudman approach is as an across the board thing that makes dramatic cuts in federal spending. Oh isn't the cure going to be worse than the disease. What will you say when the farm program gets gutted by OMB in the Congressional Budget Office under the Gramm-Rudman. Listen the farmers. That's the essence of the answer to your question. Take farms take. Take the defense take any other program you know. There's nothing off bounds nothing sacred anymore and everything being cut across the board.

There's a sense of fairness in that and that's you want where you're going to get anything done or stand that center but what I'm getting at is you've taken it's taken years to accumulate this deficit problem and this debt problem and what realistically do you do you think you can solve it in in five or six years 1990 91. But if we don't plan for the solving of it will never be solved. We've been doing it your way. I mean not necessarily your way with the way your questions suggest. For the last five years under this administration that was dedicated supposedly to fiscal conservatism or you're away for the last 15 years and nothing has been accomplished. So I think a planned approach even though I didn't think of it and in my estimation it's not as good as that across the board budget freeze but it still will get us there. And I have no other map to follow. What about tax reform Senator what are the prospects for for that ever happening. Not very good. And I think we see the president's program Terry ate it through his own compromise of it. It's been carried it to a greater extent in the work of the House Ways and Means Committee. There may be a bill but I don't see it going very far in the

Senate. And if it does it's not going to pass a share it'll be well in the next year before it passes. Why don't we talk a little bit ago about disarray in the farm segment. What about the disarray is the president and starch and this coming week meeting with that with the by Chavez at this summit. Stories in today's newspapers tell about your old untag and Caspar Weinberger. Leaking a letter to The New York Times in which we have White House spokesman saying Weinberger and the Pentagon are trying to scuttle the summit. Do you have any hopes for anything being accomplished at the summit with this kind of disarray apparently going on and in the administration if the president is dedicated to those principles that he wants to attain and doesn't rely doesn't have to rely to any great extent at that conference itself on his advisors the answer to that is yes. But if he's got all these forces coming at him then I

think there is a chance for success but I would like to suggest to you that we shouldn't measure this summit. Unlike others I hope come along on the success of whether or not we get an agreement at this summit I think we open dialogue. There is some relationship established between Reagan and Gorbachev. I think that with that you ought to consider it a success particularly if it's followed up with negotiations at lower levels of diplomatic in the diplomatic corps for cultural exchanges scientific exchanges increase agricultural trade agricultural extension exchanges hopefully even Fulbright type exchanges between citizens of our country. Then I think you can consider to success are you considered a success even if there is just a line of communication open between the two leaders. Yes if that if in that line of communication there is an agreement that within the next year or a couple times we do now on the end of this Reagan administration there's agreement on the need for a future summit.

What do you think about that letter from Caspar Weinberger specifically. Do you think that that cabinet officer has a role in doing something like that just before a summit meeting. Do you think that's proper. Normal And the reason it isn't proper is because he's a member of a team I mean might find the same fault. You know if I thought a Weinberger is right or why doesn't the blocking all carry a stronger message to the president but eventually when the president makes a decision his team has to join in. Otherwise they need to resign and that's kind of the situation here but I'm not surprised at it because not only Weinberger but there's people below him like Powell as an example who is committed almost to the end that there can never be any consensus between the United States and Russia. Most of us don't buy that. We feel that that there are chances that something can be worked out. Can I go in your on as chairman of a judiciary subcommittee dealing with the

Helsinki Accords enforcement. Yeah. That you've been very much involved in a matter of a Soviet dissident stand Jewish refuseniks and had a people who have tried to get out of the Soviet Union. And I know you've been a great help to some of them. Do you see any any advance any progress on that. Dad that area coming out this summer. You know eat and even though I know there's been a little bit of good news some family reunification 10 families reunified But the reason we don't feel that there's chances for good coming out of it because there has been those few a few people let go. And we feel that that's just to satisfy world opinion and that is that that then it will be forgotten about. Now we know the president is committed to bringing it up on the agenda. We have a letter that I promoted and Senator Cranston by signed by 89 U.S. senators asking the president to go there with a

specific agenda on human rights. We feel the White House will do that. But we feel that the Russian response will not be very satisfactory. Senator you think it's wise for senators on the agriculture committees to get involved in foreign policy when Soviet sailors want to defect. Doesn't that hurt American grain exports to the Soviet Union. I don't think so. I think that Soviet exports imports of our agriculture products are based upon the economic need of Russia and they buy strictly from us because they need it. And because of treaty obligations by at least 8 million ton I don't. For let me back up and say though that I don't I think it should have been handled other ways but I was scurrying around in ways in which I could help I'm a member of the Immigration Subcommittee. I tried to get Senator Simpson to do something he wouldn't do anything. So I ended along ended up along with two other congressman going into court with the American Civil Liberties

Union to try to in a last if ditch effort to save. So I'm sure Senator Helms was doing it for the same reason. And they are grasping at every straw he could you know consider that meddling. If you understand that Congress has a right to issue a subpoena then I and I don't think exercising your constitutional function can be considered meddling now if he wanted to. To be the secretary of state then the answer is yes he was minimal there so be it say I was only one small alibi and what seemed to be a whole big picture. Well egg splatting all over the face of the US on the eve of this summit and the CIA was not directly involved I guess in the sale of but ready and that they used the defection of Wise Men Are you satisfied with the success of congressional oversight of the CIA it seems likely we have one fiasco after another. No and I don't want to. My answer is not based just upon the current happenings I just

affirm what I was led to believe on Senator Goldwater statement on the mining on the Nicaragua harbors by the CIA back about two years ago when he had been it had been inferred it was going to happen and he was shown a little wine and a whole great big testimony that it was shown and then he didn't seem to know that what had been said. I think that speaks for itself. Senator we've only got about a minute left. You've been in politics for better 25 years now I think you're a farmer. How long is this farm crisis got to last. How long is it going. Have to play out. No I don't agree with you that it has to last but not OK because itis because I if I get into it yesterday I would end it. But even with the best of legislation with getting down the interest rates getting down the value of the dollar I think we have enough nother couple tough years ahead of us. And and I think that's one of the best of circumstances and I think when you have an overhang on the market we do because we've had surplus grain production worldwide except in USSR. It's

going to take a long time to work our way out of it but that's what we have to do and we want the government to provide people over the home. That's what we're asking for in this farm bill with the Farm Credit legislation. Just a quick question then we've got about 30 seconds left Mel. At the summit there seems to be a pre-summit build up on the stumbling block of the Star Wars research the Strategic Defense Initiative I think the president calls it. If you don't think that more than a line of communication is going to come out of this summit at this point you don't consider then the Starwars going ahead with that in the standard administration not to use it as a bargaining chip to be a stumbling block at all. Well first of all I think it can be a bargaining chip I don't mind it being a bargaining chip but I think we have to move ahead with it. But I think it's it's a point of negotiation. And I would like to have more come out of it than what I said just increase communication but I'll consider it a success if we have a friendly relationship slowly develop as a result of it. Now if we could have a good disarmament. Treaty then so much the better.

But I just don't think that we're going to have it on the first round. Thank you. Thank you Senator Grassley for being our guest this week and I will press for panels tonight if you have seen a John McCauley I'm going Borg Thanks for being with us now. And stay tuned for Morgan Heldrich who has take what next. Good night. Major funding for Iowa press was provided by friends or by well public television.

The.