>>> The race for Senator features Iowa's longest-serving Senator and a retired Navy admiral.

We'll question Chuck Grassley and Mike Franken on this live Iowa press debate.

>>> Funding for Iowa press was provided by friends, the Iowa pbs foundation.

The associated general contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building infrastructure.

Iowa pbs is supported in part by Wells Fargo.

A voice and a resource for Iowa's fuel industry.

Our members offer a diverse range of products, including fuel, grocery and convenience items.

They help keep Iowans on the move in rural and urban communities.

>> Small businesses are the backbone of Iowa's communities and are backed by Iowa banks with financial services.

Banks across Iowa are committed to showing small businesses the way to a stronger tomorrow.

LEARN more at Iowa bankers.com.

>>> For decades, Iowa press has brought you news makers from across Iowa and beyond.

Live from Johnston, this is a special Iowa press debate, featuring candidates for U.S. Senate.

Here is moderator Kay Henderson.

>> For the next hour, we will explore the views of the two men running to represent Iowans in the U.S. senates for the next six years.

Let's meet the candidates.

Democrat Mike frankson from sioux city, seeking his first elected office.

Republican Chuck Grassley of Newhartford was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980.

He is seeking an eighth term, welcome to you both.

>> Thank you.

>> Very pleased.

>> Reporter the joining me are Erin Murphy and Breann Fonnensteel.

>> Chuck Grassley, for years, you've garnered significant bipartisan support from across the state as you've run for reelection.

Why should Democrats and independents vote for you this November?

>> Well, first of all, before I answer that question, I want to thank Iowa public broadcasting for Hosting this.

It's a very important part of the people's making a choice for election.

I want to thank my opponent for his service, military service.

A long period of time that he served the people of Iowa.

And I would also like to say that I'm running for reelection, because I love Iowa.

I love the people of Iowa.

And I want to continue to work for the people of Iowa.

And if I'm reelected to the United States Senate, so this is answering your question, if I'm reelected to the United States Senate, I will be number one in the United States Senate.

Iowa will be number one on my agenda, whether you're Republican, Democrat or independent.

And my opponent will be number 100.

And I want to be able to serve Iowans in running for reelection.

Another way to serve the people, Republican, Democrat, and independents, according to your question, would be to simply say that I'm going to go to Washington again to, and hopefully be in a majority to undo these awful policies of this administration.

And my opponent has said that Biden is doing a fabulous job.

The people of Iowa, Republican, Democrat, independent, they come to my county meetings, they think inflation and energy and the border are out of control.

>> Mike Franken.

Registered Republicans now outnumber active Democrats in the state.

Why should Republicans vote for you as well?

>> Well, I think a lot of Republicans have the same essence why this election is so important as I do.

Certainly, on January 6 last year, there was an attack on democracy.

And going back, my lifetime, Senator Grassley's lifetime, going back to the Civil War, never have we had a situation where over a half of a political party has, has voted to violate the results of an election.

Think about this.

The basic premises for democracy, one person, one vote.

Toss it out.

It no longer matters.

If they were a football field, football team, they would never have to go on the field, and yet would win every game.

This is the concept of the Republicans today.

They don't like the election, so they're going to change it.

And they are a now normalizing that behavior.

Senator Grassley has had an opportunity to refute that, to use that leadership that he has, at that he talks about, to good use and to put, to quell this nonsense that's causing this divisiveness in this nation.

Do remember that back in January of '02, when this country was completely coalesced together, coming off 9/11, the people that have been in leadership positions since that time have also led us astray.

The nation is doing the splits.

And the thing that drives rural Iowa apart, troubles so many communities is this terrible divisiveness.

And Chuck Grassley could do way more than that, and he doesn't.

He refuses.

He's part of the Bessemer furnace to fan the fans of this in this Craven desire to stay in office.

Ly be like that young draft pick, the person that's going to bring the team up.

I've got the vivaciousness and the intellect, the ideas, the life full of experiences living across the world, across the globe and bring the best across to Iowa to be your best Senator ever.

>> I can understand why my opponent wants to talk about January 6.

By the way, I'm going to be voting for a bill that will change a lot of things in the 1886 law that makes what happened when the Democrats did it in 2001, Democrats did it in 2004.

Democrats did it in 2017.

Republicans did it in 2020, because it's so easy to challenge.

And the question of whether or not the vice president should have stepped in and stopped things is ridiculous, even under the constitution.

And so we're going to make clear that the vice president's role is counting votes, nothing more.

And then we're going to make sure that not just one person in the house or one person in the Senate can challenge these electoral votes.

It's going to have to be at least 20% of each house to do that.

>> And we're going to get to that topic later.

So we appreciate you talking about that.

We want to ask now, the Senate majority, as you mentioned, Senator Grassley, is in the balance in this election across the country.

Mike Franken, we'll start with you here.

If Democrats should keep that majority, what is the first thing that the Senate should do with its agenda setting?

>> I think we ought to address health care in America.

And part of that health care is woman's reproductive freedoms.

The next issue is immigration.

We must fix immigration at the border, provide the necessary workforce for the jobs.

Every business in Iowa needs workers.

This has been a political football for way too long.

I would attack this.

And get a comprehensive immigration plan passed.

Next, we need more responsible gun ownership in America.

Now no one's going to gun-SPLAIN me on this issue, and Senator Grassley touts his number one in the nation, number one of 100 senators to be the most pro-gun industry lobbying and NRA of all the Senators.

This doesn't help the high violence that we have with guns in America.

I am looking for responsible gun ownership, and I'll be the leader in that engagement, because I'm, I think, well schooled in this area.

>> Chuck Grassley, same question for you.

If Republicans should reclaim a majority in the Senate, what is the first thing they should do?

>> The Grassley-widen bill to reduce prescription drug prices that one year over another year you can't have more of an increase in the drug prices of CPI.

The second thing is, I hope to get it passed yet this year, but if we don't get it passed, our cattle feeders in the Midwest do not have a fair market because the four biggest meat Packers, almost a monopoly, control the market with a cozy relationship between the Texas and Kansas feedlots.

So an independent producer in Iowa doesn't get a chance to market their product.

The other thing is, Klobuchar-Grassley bipartisan bill.

We're taking on amazon and Google and other platforms that are cheating the small businesses that use those platforms so that they, by prioritizing their own product.

So that's economic discrimination that we have to put a stop to.

And those are the things that I would prioritize that I'm involved in.

But things that I'm involved in as a group, I think we have a responsibility to make sure that social security and Medicare are alive and well for our grandchildren and children.

And it's easier to do that yesterday than it is tomorrow.

And that's got to be an immediate importance.

And then something that I've advocated for a long time that I think is the only thing that's going to bring fiscal responsibility to the federal government is to have a constitutional amendment requiring a balance budget, just like most of our states have, and Iowa has that same thing.

>> Thank you.

Mike Franken, you have said that the Senate should codify Roe versus Wade.

How should the bill define viability, which was part of that ruling?

>> Well, the short of it is, most private times, personal times in a woman's life.

We shouldn't have the government stepping in to determine when viability exists, et cetera.

The doctor knows this.

The woman knows this.

This is not something for government to step in and make those determinations.

>> Senator Grassley, after the Dobbs ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, you have said that the abortion issue is now to be decided by elected officials in the states.

However, some of your Republican colleagues in the Senate have been talking about a nationwide abortion ban.

If it's brought up on the Senate floor, will you vote no?

>> I think everybody knows throughout my life I've been pro-life, pro-mother, pro-family.

I think the Supreme Court decision was the right decision.

Now, for 50 years, because the Supreme Court decision was the law of the land, I accepted it.

The Supreme Court has overturned that back to the states, so elected representatives of the people of the United States get a chance to voice their opinions through their elected representatives, and that surely is better in a democracy than unelected judges of the courts to make that decision.

And that's where I stand.

And and if you look at what my opponent wants to do, he has the most extreme position on abortion you can have.

He wants abortion to be available to the last minute of birth.

He wants the taxpayers to pay for that abortion.

And he doesn't want parents to have a voice in the abortion of a minor.

I think that's a very extreme position.

>> Mike frank SNN.

>> Some of those are a surprise to me.

Chuck Grassley has made a career since first announced this in 1972 to go after a woman's right to choose.

Now I have a long career supporting people's rights, our way of life internationally and domestically in the United States military.

And it's very interesting that I come back here, now having to defend rights of the woman.

To choose what's best for her.

And this last little bit that he mentioned in a woman's pregnancy.

This is the most personal time of all.

The name's been chosen of that child.

The room's been painted.

The cradle's been bought, gifts have been made, cards have been sent out.

And a malady happens.

A woman's life is in danger.

Chuck Grassley's world is, let health just rule the day.

No exceptions.

No bans.

Abortion-NISH, when in fact this doesn't happen in reality.

This is a private time where a tough decision has to be made, where a lawyer being in the room is not part of the equation, nor is an intrusive government and a Supreme Court that's idealized after Senator grassly.

>> Senator Grassley.

>> I think my opponent ought to be ashamed of himself, because he has put up a TV ad that says that I'm not for any exceptions for abortions, and I've pointed out, you folks in the news media would have gotten our press release, multiple times where I'm exception for life of a mother, rape and incest.

And yet he's still running that ad.

I think that what I've said on abortion is, is where I stand, because I'm pro-life, pro-mother, pro-family.

And everybody knows where I stand.

>> Just a quick followup.

You said elected representatives should make the decision.

Does that make elected representatives at the federal level?

>> Well, obviously, it could be at the federal level, but for, we've been waiting for a long period of time to get this back to the states.

And that's where it should be, and that's where I want it to be.

>> If Senator graham's bill came up on the nationwide ban, how would you vote?

Yes or no?

>> I would vote no, but usually that question comes another way, because I did support a bill before, and I supported a bill before because then, before the Supreme Court decision, it was a federal issue.

Now it's a state issue.

>> Let's move on to another topic that's in the news today.

President Biden announced that he will pardon thousands of Americans who are convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law and review how the drug is scheduled.

Chuck Grassley, given your work on sentencing reform, do you think this is a good idea?

>> There's no doubt about it that the president of the United States has the constitutional authority to do what he did.

I, we haven't had a lot of time to reflect on it, but one of the things that comes to my mind is, very few people on marijuana charges are in federal prison.

Most of them, 90% of them, are in state prisons.

10%, well, that's kind of the ratio between federal and state prison populations.

Anyway, when, when something like that gets to the state, gets to trial, it's usually something that's very, very, much bigger than just selling or using marijuana or dealing in marijuana.

And sometimes these are reduced to maybe just a marijuana charge.

With, by plea bargaining.

And if that's part, that's something you got to take into consideration.

Another thing that I think is, my work with Durbin and Biden or Durbin and me on the first step act, prison justice reform, the first reform in 30 years gives anybody that had an unreal sentence given to them, that they in turn under the first step act could go back to the judge and get their thing reduced.

I think that takes everything into consideration that the president's act doesn't.

But I can't find any fault with the president's actions, because it is constitutional, whether it's exactly right, I haven't made that determination yet.

>> Mike Franken, you say you support legalizing recreational marijuana.

Should that be regulated individually at the state level or would you support a federal law?

>> I think this is step one to de-criminalize it across the nation.

And the, I haven't read the intricacies of this bill, but if you de-criminalize it at the federal level where transactions and businesses associated with marijuana are growing and distribution in the states that have legalized it, this will compel states to all get on board, because this is a drug, recreational or otherwise, which will decrease the cost of some pharmaceuticals, provide people alternatives.

It's a known quantity to be net value from a medical perspective.

And I anticipate that the reduction in criminality associated with keeping it as a category one will have great impact in terms of reducing the amount of crime, let alone how this has been rather unsettled in terms of its application to minorities.

Certainly, there's a, some lack of leveling as to who it applies to.

And the number of people in prison, associated with marijuana usage is far out of proportion to the races.

>> Most of this -- I'm sorry.

>> Please go ahead.

>> Most of these marijuana comes across the border, an open border.

Seems like my opponent believes in an open border, because he's said the wall was an idiotic thing.

And we've got to control the border, not just for marijuana, for Fentanyl that killed 200 Iowans.

70,000 Americans.

And with an open border, this stuff's just coming into the country.

And just a little bit, below an ounce.

I don't measure, but just a little bit, and a lot less will kill one person.

So there's enough Fentanyl coming into this country to kill our population seven times over, and we've got to control the border, and I wish my opponent believed in controlling the border.

>> So I do have a history in the military.

I think for more years than any other Iowans.

So open borders and a military service really doesn't jive.

And I'm a law and order type of individual.

And I believe civil authority reigns supreme in a free and open society.

So that's, let that just hang there.

Regarding the Fentanyl coming across the border, a vast amount of it is shipped in via packages, via the DHL and mail and the like.

That's well-known in the, in the authorities.

That which is brought across the border isn't being humped back by illegal people crossing by undocumented borders crossing the border.

It's come across in traffic, Merchandising and trucks, et cetera.

Let's be honest about this.

And yes, it has to be controlled.

It has to be fixed, and this is a great way to begin working on that.

>> I wish my opponent wouldn't take sovereignty, he's in the Navy so long defending the sovereignty of the United States, but when you have an open border, we're no longer a sovereign nation.

>> We do have an immigration on the agenda.

Hopefully we'll get to that in a little bit.

Mike Franken, right now, Iowans are seeing you in a campaign ad in which you say Senators, quote, have no role whatsoever in bringing down inflation.

Should we take this to mean that if elected to the Senate you in the Senate see no role for yourself in addressing inflation?

>> On the contrary.

There's no instantaneous thing you can do as a Senator that's going to suddenly reduce inflation.

Now my opponent has seen these wafting moments of inflation come and go through his career.

As a matter of fact when he entered the Senate I remember this, because I bought my first house with a mortgage rate of 14.7% during the Reagan era, when the Republicans owned the Senate and the White House.

And it stayed there for a very high, high time for a long time.

And then it became the farm crisis, followed by the savings and loan debacle of the '80s.

Bad management.

While the '80s was going on, of course the national debt went up.

And the, the tax rate for the uber wealthy went down.

This is NIRVANA for the Republicans.

Yes, there's many things you can do.

Number one, during his career, they've exported manufacturing.

Then during the Trump years, they put a stop on immigration, so certain goods coming in, services, future employment, both got stopped.

During his time, he should have seen this.

He's seen it happen before.

He should know better, frankly.

There's many things we can do.

The other thing we can do is cut the cost of state health care.

He the opportunity to cut the cost of insulin, 35 bucks for Medicare patients, and he steps aside by a procedural manner.

He has the opportunity to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals.

The last time he introduced a bill on this, the Des Moines register called it worse than nothing.

We can do a lot as a Senator.

But it takes long-standing, altruism and intellect to make it happen and not be a STOOJ for big corporations.

>> Chuck Grassley, and we're also going to address prescription drug costs later.

But you have criticized President Biden's spending.

What legislation have you proposed or would you support that would help address -- >> I got to answer this issue that I put in a bill dealing with pharmaceuticals.

Don't forget, that that's when the bill that I got passed, part D of Medicare, because Medicare never had anything to help seniors with pharmaceuticals between 1966 and 2003, and I led the battle as chairman of the finance committee to get that done.

So I don't think he's in a position to tell me that I haven't done something on this issue.

Anyway, inflation is number one on the issues that I hear from my constituents.

And what would you expect?

When Larry Summers, former secretary of treasury in the Clinton administration, an outstanding economist said in January before this new administration took place that don't spend anymore money or you're going to feed the fires of inflation.

Remember, inflation was 1.4% when this president went in.

And you can't blame the war in Ukraine like it, like Biden wants to do, because it was still 6% at the start of that war.

And so consequently, within 60 days after they were sworn in with a Democrat majority, they spent another $2 trillion.

Then in August of this year, another 714 trillion.

Then forgive student debt.

And another $567 billion.

So just feeding the fires of inflation, not listening to their own is what's made this inflation.

And it's transitory, so your answer to your question for me is, when you're in a hole you quit digging, but the Democrats are not quit digging.

And my opponent says when he was asked about how do you grade Biden, well, he's doing a fabulous job.

So it's quite, it's quite certain that if he were in the United States Senate, he'd be a rubber stamp for the continuation of these policies.

>> Chuck Grassley, let's talk about President Biden's student loan forgiveness program which you've opposed.

Large corporations get large tax breaks every year, farmers benefit from subsidies, so why shouldn't low and middle-income Americans been fit from the targeted relief?

>> Because the assigned promise to repay their debt.

And that's the reason for it.

But it could and Slippery slope.

Somebody going to say they need some help on their car loans?

On their house mortgage?

It just starts out there.

But first of all, very basic to the constitution.

The president himself said for 18 months he didn't have the authority to do it.

Pelosi said several times on television, only Congress can do it.

So if he doesn't have the authority to do it, how could he do it?

He said that.

But the main thing is, the total unfairness of it.

People at John Deere that never went to college paid for student loans.

People that paid off their loans, the unfairness of that.

Just stop to think.

Where does this end?

If you start down this road.

So I want people to know where I stand.

I don't think he has the authority to do it.

I'm a co-sponsor of a bill by Senator Thune to make sure it can't happen again.

And maybe the courts will step in.

I hope they step in and say he doesn't have the authority to do it.

Just like they step in a lot of times in this administration, saying you've overstepped your authority.

>> Mike Franken, you told us on a debate stage here actually, that he had a lot of concerns about forgiving student loan debt, but when President Biden unveiled his plan, you called it a quote, welcome first step.

Has your stance on this issue changed?

Fan so, why?

>> To address the Senator's comments, fearful of banks.

We bailed out banks in America.

We've bailed out car companies.

We've bailed out a lot of industries in the years.

I'm not a big fan of bailout of student debt.

I want to fix the problem.

Something he could have done anytime between now and 63 years going back.

Because it progressively got worse.

When I was in school, you could work seven weeks or so at the slaughterhouse, two and a half months maybe, max, and pay for an entire year of school, because wage scale was such that we could do that.

Since that time, Republican governors have, have detracted from what states help out for school.

We keep charging students for interest rates that are exorbitantly high.

There's lots of fixes that we can do.

He's offered none.

So I'm happy that the next generation wants to get educated.

I'm not a big fan of bailouts, either, when often times the education doesn't justify the cost.

And I also don't want people who've got a professional education that they paid a lot for, but they can earn a lot.

So there needs to be a balance in here, and we should need thought-provoking individuals to make those decisions >> There may be an implication, and I don't know what it is to go to college and pay for it, I want everybody to know that I went to the University of northern Iowa after I got out of new Hartford high school.

Worked at the packing company in Waterloo.

There's a lot of people this very day.

I had somebody today tell me that their son was working his way through college, another son was borrowing money.

And you don't want to forget, there's more than one way of going to college other than just borrowing money.

>> Candidates, we have a lot of questions here.

Let's get to the next one.

It's about Ukraine.

Chuck grassly, some of your fellow Republicans have said if Republicans take control of Congress they should cut off aid to Ukraine.

Do you agree?

>> Not now.

Not now.

And maybe never.

But that never is connected to article V of the north Atlantic treaty organization being triggered in so that we would have to then defend wherever Putin went into Europe, into Nato Nations, and I hope that the American people will be patient to understand that helping Ukraine now will save us a lot of money later on.

If Putin is stopped right now.

I believe that our president has done a reasonably good job in this area as commander in chief.

Maybe six months a little bit late.

But I think my opponent has said that we should put, if there's a nuclear attack on the part of Putin, that we should put American troops in Ukraine.

I don't believe American troops should go to Ukraine.

>> Mike Franken, Vladimir Putin has threatened nuclear warfare involved in this conflict.

What happens next for America if that were to occur?

>> Sure.

So Vladimir Putin, Vlad the impaler whose lapdog is where the Republican leadership goes for meetings.

He's the guy that the previous president definitely kowtowed to for some interesting reasons.

What you get with me is a clear, clear-eyed, Longview of the world.

And Vlad is not finished in Ukraine.

Now yes, I agree with the Senator.

We were late in, to need in Ukraine.

I didn't think he was going to do this, this invasion.

Other people were, were more right than me on this issue, but two months out was a little too late to provide the necessary capabilities for the Ukrainians to defend their border.

Now that the war is in hot war situation we need to realize that anything short of pushing the Russian soldiers across that border will involve a yet another chapter of Russia extending the great white Russia into the neighboring countries.

We need to be very careful here.

And regarding putting American troops in a combat zone, no one knows more about this than perhaps me.

Having spent more years in a combat theater in command than I think all of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate combined.

So I said aid workers to help with the terrible burn victims as a result of a nuclear weapon.

American workers, yes.

The international workers, like-minded countries, because this will be a declaration of, of readiness that this country has not seen since the '60s.

>> Soldiers?

Military?

>> Some will be soldiers, but it doesn't mean they have to be armed.

This is their expertise, called CBR soldiers.

They're kited to do this.

You can't really do it without the kited soldiers.

>> I think it would be very dangerous to send soldiers in without weapons so they can protect themselves.

>> If you want to be a broad-shouldered nation then you've got to take those risks.

That's why we joined the military.

We take the military, you swear the oath to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

He's taken this oath as well, I'd say a dozen times.

I have as well.

I take it seriously.

I'm not so sure he does.

>> We were talking about your support for the electoral count act, changes to update that act.

What more needs to be done to protect the peaceful transfer of presidential power?

>> I think since it happened because of the 1886 law, and I think a misreading of the 1886 law, changing this law and making it more difficult to challenge the electoral votes that count, I think is a big step forward.

And I'm not saying there's nothing else should be done, but that's it.

Now there's some things that are talked about being done that I don't think should be done.

The house of representatives twice has passed a voting bill that would federalize all elections and do away with the 50 state elections.

And I think that would be a wrong move, because if there's fraud in Chicago with, under a federal law, it would dilute the votes of Iowans, whereas when we do it through state law, what happens in Chicago isn't going to dilute the vote of Iowans.

>> Let's keep talking about January 6.

On that day last year, were you serving as Senate president pro tem.

So there was a chance that you could have presided over the counting of electoral votes in place of vice president Mike Pence.

If you had done that, would you have approved the count and certified Joe Biden as president as Mike Pence did in >> You are reading something that was misreported, and that misreporting was corrected a long, long time ago.

Within just a few weeks after it was put up.

And what I was talking about that was misquoted was, if something comes back from the joint session to the Senate to debate whether or not there should be some challenge to the, to the, to those electors from a specific state, then usually always when the vice president doesn't preside I preside, and that's what I was talking about.

And it was misreported, and it was corrected.

>> And just to clarify for voters at home who maybe don't know the ins and outs.

Would you have approved Joe Biden and announced him the winner of the election the way Mike Pence did?

>> That's not even a legitimate question.

Because we are taking care of that issue right now by making sure in this legislation that I hope passes in November, December, when we get back, that the vice president has no discretion whatsoever.

His job is strictly ministerial.

Just count the votes.

Nothing more.

>> Mike Franken, what policies do you believe need to be enacted to preserve the peaceful transfer of power and prevent the confrontations we saw on January 6?

>> So senator Grassley mentioned the previous objections the Democrats made.

Just so you know, the majority vote of Americans in every one of those presidential elections, every one, was Democrat.

So the majority of the Americans voted for a Democratic president.

And we ended up with a Republican president.

So, and there wasn't any violence.

Do recall, no violence.

The country sat without a president for weeks as we counted votes in Florida.

The Democrats did the honorable thing.

They waited for the process to work.

And they saluted smartly and went about their business.

That's the, that's Democrat way of believing in democracy.

The Republican way is to kill people and assaulting the capitol, to erect a gallows.

Really?

And to have opportunities in the state of Iowa where someone stands up and says Senator Grassley, what are you going to do to get those people, those patriots out of gulag-like situations because of the conspiring FBI and capitol police threw them in the Hugh SKOU.

And he say we have to work on the judiciary, really?

That's leadership?

That's not the steel jaw we need to preserve leadership.

This country's never had it before, but when a party goes off the rail because of lack of leadership, and this Craven desire to stay in office, to stay in power, then we've got problems.

And we probably already will until we get different people in office.

>> You understand that he wants to talk about January 6, because he doesn't want to talk about the things that are on Iowans' minds.

In 99 county meetings, that's pretty general, inflation, energy and the border.

>> We're going to get to those.

>> And he thinks the president's doing -- I wish you wouldn't interrupt me.

I wanted time limits, you folks didn't want time limits.

You wanted free flowing, so I'm free flowing with you.

Anyway, the bottom line of it is that he has said so many times that Biden's done a fabulous job.

He's said that he wants to make Iowa more progressive than California.

And he says the wall is idiotic.

And if he goes back to the Senate, if he's in the Senate, he'd be a rubber stamp for all those things that my people in my 99-county meetings feel are bad.

>> Another topic we want to talk about, you mentioned earlier, Chuck Grassley, is social security.

Mike Franken, we'll start but here.

People who look at the projected solvency of programs like social security and Medicare have concerns.

What policies do you propose to extend the life of those programs, to ensure that those benefits continue to be -- >> Well, let the record show that my opponent would like to privatize social security, would like to privatize Medicare, Medicaid.

He would like to up the ages.

He would like to place more restrictions, and he doesn't, and he actually wrote the law to ensure Medicare cannot work with big pharma to reduce the price.

He literally wrote the law.

Okay.

Easy.

Erase the 147K cap to who puts into social security.

And let's not do this hill hocus-pocus that people are talking about in Congress to leave this gap between $147,000 and $400,000 in income.

Who's in that gap?

Senator Grassley's in that gap.

So he can pay that 147, and all the extra money he makes with the extra sidebar activity, doesn't pay tax on it.

And then we reluctantly let people start paying into social security.

Let's do that.

As a matter of fact, let's move the opportunities for social security to people who are, well, there's a series of things that we can do.

I'll leave it at that.

>> But would those, would that be enough to keep the programs healthy?

>> Oh, yes, indeed.

Those programs would be solvent for perpetuity or nearly so.

And in the end, I would expect, I would expect the fact that all those uber wealthy people, those people who could care less about having to pay tax on social security.

How much do you charge tax?

What's the wrong amount of tax to pay someone who's just made their second $200 million.

>> We've got a tax question later.

>> Don't I get a chance?

>> Yes.

>> Then I have a question for you on this topic.

A fellow Republican >> You don't want me to answer the question you asked him.

>> You can do that, too.

But I have a question for you.

>> Wait, let me answer that, then you ask me the question.

>> Fair enough.

>> First of all, my principles are not what he said, that I want to privatize social security.

That means if you privatize social security it wouldn't be a government program anymore.

Social security, as far as Chuck Grassley's concerned, is part of the social fabric of America.

And it has been that way since 1936, and it's going to be preserved, and it needs to be worked on right now.

Will it be worked on right now?

That's up to bipartisan group of people get together to do it like Reagan and tip O'Neill did the last time it was in trouble.

And they fixed it, and it's fixed until right now.

But it's getting in trouble now.

Getting a surplus that we built up of two and seven tenths trillion dollars.

It's got to be preserved for our children and grandchildren.

And after you preserve it for your children and grandchildren you've got to make sure that when you're doing that, whatever Congress does, you can't do, make any changes for people that are in retirement or near retirement.

Those are basic principles.

But in order to get this solved, it's going to have to be like Ronald Reagan and tip O'Neill did.

They got together and they said, we may not agree on anything else, but we've got to save social security, and they worked to save social security.

It's going to take the same process again to get it done.

>> Senator Rick Scott has proposed to re-authorize those every five years.

>> That's a stupid idea.

>> You're a no on that one I take it.

>> I just got done saying we got to preserve it.

He may have an idea that would work for most programs, but not what we call programs that are entitlements, where you work hard, and you meet certain conditions for it.

You don't have to get a special appropriation from Congress.

You just draw on the system.

That's what social security is.

It brings certainty to the system, and his would bring uncertainty to it.

It's just wrong.

>> Aaron, just so you know, his comment about increasing the intricacies of the program, what he's saying is that's, that's political talk.

Double-talk for bump up the age of eligibility, which is, in layman's terms, a cut to the program.

>> Grassley, do you support -- >> You guys didn't hear me say I was going to cut the program or increase the age, did you?

Go ahead and ask your question.

>> Mike Franken, the Grassley campaign has pointed to allegations from one of your former campaign staffers that you gave her an unwanted kiss and have an old-fashioned approach to interacting with women.

What do you say to people who have concerns?

>> That matter was investigated and found to be unfounded.

And, you know?

I'm a husband.

Two kids.

Girl and boy.

Wife of 33 years.

40-year history of zero tolerance of sexual malfeasance, sexual misdeeds, of gender-related harassment.

But what's particularly annoying about this issue is I also have a zero tolerance for the politicalization of this issue.

And how my opponent has taken this as, of his age and seniority and time in the Senate, to use this as a tool.

And what he's doing is weaponizing women's rights.

This is a guy who's made it his career to ban abortion, to support unequal pay, to do nothing for paid family leave.

To, many times, vote against the violence against women act.

I don't have a problem with this, with this, with, with this issue.

He has a problem with women.

And we're seeing this manifest itself with these series of other bills that he's now working, that he's bringing these things to the platform, like with, well, various bills.

And it is just a ploy, because he's got a problem, because it's known that he's, he's got some anti-woman activity in his career.

>> Chuck Grassley?

>> My colleague you are in no position to lecture me about women.

You're in no position to do that.

And I would clarify for you that the Grassley campaign did not release this.

His former campaign manager filed a police report.

The police report was made public by a journalist.

That's, and I knew about it when I read it in the paper.

>> Chuck Grassley, you're seeking an eighth term in the U.S. Senate.

If you win, you'll be 95 at the end of that term.

What do you say to Iowans who wonder if you're up to the task?

>> I wish I would get this question more often than I get it, and I think a lot of people are afraid to ask me, and I'm glad you weren't afraid to ask me.

I think the only thing I can tell you is how I lead my life today.

I go to bed at 9:00, get up at 4:00.

Run two miles.

Get to the office by 6:00, sometimes a little bit before 6:00.

The staff comes in 9:00 to 6:00, they work.

Because that's the way Washington works, office hours.

I have a full schedule when I'm in session.

Committee meetings and all those things.

Usually go home at 6:30, quarter to 7:00.

Start over the next day.

I've got the longest record of not missing a vote of any Senator in the 2000 that have served since 1789 of not missing a vote or 27 years of not missing a vote, 8,927 votes that I cast without missing until I got COVID and then I missed ten and haven't missed any since then.

And I just do my job that way.

And by the way, that 27 previously was held by bill PROXMyer of Wisconsin.

He went 22 years without miss ago vote.

And when Congress is in session, I think you know very well what I do.

I travel Iowa to keep in touch with Iowans.

And I think that that's how I'm going to continue for the next term of office if the people will return me to the United States Senate.

>> And Senator, do you intend to serve a full six-year term if you are reelected?

>> Yes.

>> Chuck grassly, this came up earlier.

You opposed an amendment in the Senate that would have capped insulin prices at $35.

You said at the time that the opposition was because it didn't follow procedural rules.

What do you say to Iowans who don't necessarily understand the bureaucratic hurdles and just want access to reasonably-priced medicines?

>> I'm in the frontline of getting fairness for insulin.

First of all, I support the $35 cap.

I support it in the Sheehan-Collins bill.

That bill also has something that the amendment you're asking me about didn't have in it.

It has reform of the pharmaceutical benefit managers role as middleman between the company and the consumer.

We don't know what it does.

Unless you reform that, there's going to be, through the opaqueness of the system, it's going to be shifting things from here to there, and there might not be the savings that people want.

So if you don't have PBM reform at the same time that you're trying to do something about insulin.

When I got to be chairman of the Senate finance committee, I immediately called Epi-Pen and the other companies that do insulin into hearing.

And quite frankly, they didn't answer our questions.

So Weiden and me, my counterpart who was then ranking member, now chairman of that committee, we started a study.

And if people will go to my website, Grassley.Senate.gov, they'll see how companies are manipulating prices to the detriment of the people that have diabetes.

And so nobody can say that I haven't been in the forefront of this effort.

Besides, one of the key, one of the 38 sections of the Grassley-Weiden bill, to get prescription drug prices down deals with this very same thing, dealing with insulin and trying to get a fair price and a fair break for the people that have to use insulin.

>> Mike Franken, as our time starts to wind down here, that insulin cap was partially implemented.

So beyond expanding that cap, what else needs to be done to rein in prescription drug costs for Americans?

>> Well, let's ensure that we have complete clarity as to who gets money from this big pharma.

Chuck Grassley has raked it in for his campaign donations, $1.4 million or so?

These long understood problems associated with high health care have not caused him to act, to get on the stick and do something about it for all those votes he had an opportunity to get going on.

We can certainly change -- here's the thing.

I've lived all over the world.

And in the health care system in the United States military is what everybody in America ought to have.

It is clean.

It is perfect, what families all should have.

But we have the, one of the least efficient systems I can think of.

Great care providers, great education for the care providers, school, institutions, hospitals, et cetera, but a really inefficient system that maximizes profit.

How many times did he vote against the affordable care act?

Five times?

Six times?

A dozen times?

With no alternative to that.

He wants to, with vapid profits for health care industry and big pharma's part of that.

This is his legacy.

It's indisputable.

>> Chuck Grassley?

>> What you just heard was he wants the government to take over all health care.

What he's saying to you reminds me of the promises that were made during the Obamacare debate.

If you like your health insurance you can keep it.

If you like your doctor you can keep it.

You can't.

And all those lies.

Because the things were overpromised.

They couldn't be delivered.

And he wants the government to run the whole thing?

Have the government between you and your doctor?

That's not what I want.

I want freedom of medicine.

I want individual choice.

I want to put the patient first.

>> Mike Franken, we have less than two minutes left.

>> Yeah.

>> Would you vote to repeal the Trump-era tax cuts?

>> Yes.

>> Why?

>> It helps the uber wealthy.

You know the ones for the middle class or upper middle class, they expired in 2021.

They're slowly going out, but the big ones for the uber wealthy are still in place this.

Is typical of the Republicans.

Cause class divide.

Let the big, wealthy people become more so.

And fund and keep their politicians in.

Why do you think the Republican party's getting flooded with money, and yet they're running such feeble candidates?

Because people need those votes so the uber wealthy can get more wealthy.

>> Chuck Grassley, the final minute.

>> If he did what he said or what will happen in 2025 if you do nothing, you're going to have the biggest tax increase in the history of the country, and look at what happened as a result of the 2017 tax bill.

Before the pandemic.

We had the best economy we had in 50 years.

We had the lowest unemployment in 50 years.

We had the lowest unemployment against minorities in 50 years.

We had the most women in the workforce ever.

And you can go on and on with the statistics that's a direct result of the tax reduction of 2017.

>> You have said that you would want the U.S. Senate to vote to codify those tax cuts in 2023, why do it instead when they're running out in 2025?

>> Because the rules of the Senate, when you don't have 60 votes to pass a tax bill under reconciliation, it can only be done for ten years, this was done for nine years.

>> Okay, we are done.

>> Did anybody talk about debt?

Did you hear what he just said?

>> I did.

And all of our viewers heard it.

>> Unbelievable.

>> And we are out of time for this edition of an Iowa press debate.

Thanks to you both for sharing your views with our viewers.

>> Thank you for having us.

>> On Monday, October 17th we'll have a debate and on Tuesday October 18th we'll question the candidates in Iowa's new district, Ashley Hinson and Liz Mathis, both debates will be live on air and online at Iowapbs.org.

If you miss part of this debate or want to watch the debate we held here last week with the candidates in Iowa's new first Congressional district, again, go to Iowapbs.org.

On behalf of all the hardworking staff and crew here at Iowa pbs, I'm Kay Henderson.

Thanks for watching.

>>> Funding for Iowa press was provided by friends, the Iowa pbs foundation.

The associated general contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal infrastructure.

Iowa pbs is supported in part by Wells Fargo.

Fuel Iowa, a resource for Iowa's fuel industry.

We offer fuel, grocery and convenience items.

They help keep Iowans on the move in rural and urban communities.

Together we fuel Iowa.

Small businesses are the backbone of Iowa's communities, and they are backed by Iowa banks with advice, loans and financial services.

Banks across Iowa are committed to showing small businesses the way to a stronger tomorrow.

LEARN more at Iowa bankers.com.