GRASSLEY: Today, I'm sending a letter to the president of Taiwan, and that expresses concern of our country's continued trade barriers to U.S. agriculture products. The Taiwanese have been in confrontation with us on, particularly, pork, for a period of time. Now, we're dealing with the issue of beef because nearly five years ago Taiwan's department of health banned the import of American beef because of concerns about mad cow disease.
Since that time, the United States has adopted comprehensive control of measures for mad cow disease and the World Animal Health Organization determined that all cuts of American beef from animals of all ages are safe. While Taiwan has resumed importing boneless beef from cattle under 30 months of age, the country still has not complied with the World Animal Health Organization's finding to accept all U.S. beef regardless of age.
Taiwan prohibits imports of some U.S. pork use to spurious and non-scientific concerns about ractopamine. This feed additive has been approved for use in the United States since '99 and is registered for use in 26 other countries. So what's the big deal about Taiwan?
But Taiwan's department of health was prepared to adopt the maximum residue limits drafted by the organization that sets international standards for food safety. The department of health decided against adoption of the limits only after Taiwanese farmers began vocal opposition to imports of our pork.
GRASSLEY: I'm concerned that Taiwan's de facto ban on U.S. pork containing traces of this feed additive remain in place despite the lack of scientific evidence to support the ban.
It's troubling that this country of Taiwan is engaging in repeated abuses food safety requirements and they're doing it with design to exclude U.S. agricultural imports from their markets. And this action, obviously, violates WTO rules. It's time that Taiwan immediately removes all barriers to American farm products beginning with Taiwan's nine very unscientific restrictions on U.S. beef and ractopamine-treated pork.
Taiwan must treat U.S. products fairly if it expects to maintain its status as a strong, consistent, economic partner with the United States.
Tom Ryder (ph), Ken Root?
ROOT: Good morning, Senator.
GRASSLEY: OK. Is this Tom or Ken?
ROOT: This is Ken.
GRASSLEY: Go ahead, Ken.
ROOT: I'm the good-looking one.
GRASSLEY: Well, of course.
ROOT: Right.
Senator, (inaudible) still seems to be having some difficulties in working with farmers. And some of the things going on now are bringing in the grain indemnity fund of the state of Iowa.
Do you want to comment on any reaction to this bankruptcy and to its effect on farmers in this state?
GRASSLEY: Well, there's not really much when things are in court that a member from the political branches of government can interfere with and, particularly, with the state fund you're talking about is strictly state and operates under state law. And I'm not sure the interaction between that state law and the federal bankruptcy laws. But the extent to which farmers have their case and they want to make sure that they're heard in bankruptcy court, they've got to make sure that they file timely.
That would be the only advice I would have to them. And anything that could be done.
Now, I've been involved in federal bankruptcy laws involving bankruptcy of co-ops, when I would imagine is a little bit different than the (inaudible) sort of situation. But at one time, we had a situation where bankruptcy laws were being interpreted that if Grassley had soy beans on a warehouse receipt at New Hartford, that since my beans were co-mingled with everybody else's, that -- that we -- we wouldn't be able to identity them and couldn't have them.
And so Bob Dole and I worked hard using a farmer in southern Missouri as an example trying to get justice for all farmers so that farmers would have their grain separately identified and could be identified, then, within the bankruptcy to get appropriate refunds or separation or whatever the case is when bankruptcy was completed.
So, you know, it's not that I don't have anything to do with the issue you're asking about, Ken, but it's fairly remote from, I think, what you're asking me about. If there's something that I should be more concerned about other than giving farmers advice to make sure they get to bankruptcy court on time, I can't -- I don't know what it would be.
ROOT: Well, I was looking for your observations of it, and I think you gave those.
It seems that the federal bankruptcy court, the judge is extremely powerful and a number of rules that we normally operate under seem to be changed and modified to the benefit of that company that went bankrupt.
GRASSLEY: You know, I was involved in that -- let me start over again.
I was very deeply involved in the rewriting of the bankruptcy laws that were signed by the president in 1985. But there was very little controversy about corporate bankruptcy at that time. In fact, I think that we -- you know, the writing of the bill that actually was signed by the president in 2005 for the part of it that dealt with corporations was really written way back in '97 or '98 from recommendations of a non-political study commission on reform of the bankruptcy laws.
And there was -- and the way they recommended that they be changed, there was little deviation from that of the bill that eventually was signed by the president. So most of the controversy over the bankruptcy bills was on individual bankruptcy as opposed to corporate bankruptcy.
ROOT: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Dan Skelton?
SKELTON: Good morning, Senator.
As to your beef with Taiwan, I'm wondering -- Canada, yesterday, announced its fifteenth cases of BSE and our (inaudible) USA called on the USDA to begin testing all Canadian cattle for BSE and to withdraw its over 30-month rule.
My question is do you believe that the USDA is doing all that it can to assure expert customers like Taiwan?
GRASSLEY: Well, I don't know what you can do better than the scientific approach we've always used. We already said that these rules ought to be based on sound science and not on politics. And as long as we follow that rule and make sure that our beef is safe and we've got 26 other countries, I believe, I used -- the number was 26 countries -- that have accepted those rules. And why not Taiwan?
Gary in Arkansas?
DIGIUSEPPE: Senator, down here, they're keen on getting senator's Landrieu's bill to establish emergency disaster assistance for farmers considered during the up coming lame duck session. Do you think there's any likelihood it will be considered or passed?
GRASSLEY: Please, Gary, ask me that question again. I'm sorry. You were clear enough, but I was at a focus on something else.
DIGIUSEPPE: Well, the question is about Senator Landrieu's bill to establish emergency disaster assistance for farmers and whether there's likelihood it will be taken up and passed during the lame duck session.
GRASSLEY: I think there's little doubt because we're -- we're in a situation where, in the last farm bill, we established a fund ahead of time. And I'm sure that that fund is going to be the one that is the primary tap for any additional disaster relief for farmers. And, you know, we're having problems with the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn't want to put out any advance payments in regard to that. We're working on that.
That's a -- we'd have to be successful on that. And we've been totally unsuccessful at this point in trying to convince them to do that. But that would be what we'd have to do first if we were going to help Iowa farmers or Arkansas farmers.
DIGIUSEPPE: My understanding -- I might be incorrect -- is that Senator Landrieu's bill is separate from the shore program and would just be an off-budget disaster package similar to what has been adopted by Congress in the past. Is that correct?
GRASSLEY: Yes, you're correct. And -- but -- and if you had -- we hadn't have done in the far bill what we did, that I just described, then I would say that -- that -- you know, that it would have been legitimate to consider that type of an approach. But the truth of the matter is even if we pass this bill that she wanted right away, the help wouldn't get to the farmers any faster than it's going to get there under the trust fund that we set up.
DIGUISEPPE: OK. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Philip, are you on there?
All right. I called Tom Rider, but I didn't hear anything.
OK. I think I've gone through the list. Anybody want...
BRASHER: Senator?
GRASSLEY: Yes. Go ahead. Who is it?
BRASHER: It's Philip Brasher.
GRASSLEY: Oh, yes. Go ahead, Philip. You're a little garbled.
BRASHER: Yes, I'm sorry. Well, if you could hear me OK, my question is GMA is willing to roll back the -- and their allies -- want to, at some point roll back the (inaudible), the tax credit and shift that money to, you know, (inaudible) credit. What would your position be on that and what are the -- more importantly, what are the chances of something like that happening?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think we've already moved in that direction when we've -- in the farm -- if you remember in the farm bill, we set a dollar and $0.01 subsidy for cellulosic ethanol compared to the $0.54 subsidy or the -- the tax incentive that involved with what we've had since 1979.
So we've already moved into the direction of -- of -- of not only moving to a higher subsidy for cellulosic but reducing the 50-some cent subsidy down to, I think, $0.45 for regular ethanol. So we already moved in that direction. And they've already got a win and they don't know it.
So I hope you're write it -- tell them to get their legislative affairs department in order to keep up was what Congress has already done.
OK. That was Philip. Anybody else? Tom Rider?
SKELTON: This is Dan at Spencer.
GRASSLEY: Oh, did I forget you, Dan? Go ahead.
SKELTON: No, no, no.
GRASSLEY: Go ahead.
SKELTON: A second question and it just has to do with rumors that might be floating around Washington as to a potential ag secretary. Are you hearing any names for prominently than others?
GRASSLEY: I've only heard one at all, and that's Governor Vilsack. And I responded to an interview earlier today would I be happy to have Governor Vilsack be secretary of agriculture. And undoubtedly, yes, because the more Iowans we can get into any administration, the more common sense we're going to have in that administration. And I would say that for Republicans as well as Democrats.
And he's been governor of the state of Iowa, the number one agriculture state in the nation and knows agriculture.
Now, he may be a lawyer and I may prefer to have a -- as I've described him -- somebody with dirt under their fingernails, but I know that Governor Vilsack is close enough to those type of farmers and he's a person that listens -- that we ought to be very satisfied in agriculture to have Obama pick somebody like that.
And I would like to see him in there. Now, would I like to see him in there over anybody else? Well, I don't know who anybody else is at this point. And unless that anybody else was an Iowan that would be in competition with him, I would say, you know, Governor Vilsack could be number one on my list.
SKELTON: Well, then, let me follow up on that because former Congressman Jim Leach has also been mentioned, and he doesn't -- he's not a lawyer, no dirt under the fingernails. What would you think of that nomination?
GRASSLEY: Well, remember -- I'd have to say the same thing for a governor that's been a state -- a governor of the state of Iowa for eight years that a congressman from Iowa or former congressman from Iowa who was a member of the Congress for 26 years representing any part of this agricultural state would be well qualified as well. The fact that Leach is a Republican over Vilsack being a Democrat wouldn't make any difference to me.
SKELTON: Thank you, sir.
GRASSLEY: But I hadn't heard about Jim Leach. I heard about him getting a government appointment, but I haven't heard about it for agriculture. Have you?
My staff has heard of that, but I haven't.
Anybody else?
OK. Thank you very much.
Click Here to listen to the conference call.