GRASSLEY: There's been a lot of controversy out there at the grass roots about what the media reports as the cow tax. There's a lot of calls coming in from Iowans and a lot of people have been face-to-face with me on this issue. In July, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an advance notice of proposed rule making. Then they -- because of that, they solicit public comments on how to respond to a U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court ruling needing to be addressed by the EPA affirmed that the EPA had legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
The advance notice of proposed rule making in the federal register began 120-day public comment period when people could provide general comments on what rules greenhouse emissions should look like.
These greenhouse gas emissions including gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and, of course, methane is produced by animals. Federal rule making is confusing at best. And so we're clear on what has actually happened, an advance notice of proposed rule making only solicits general comments on what people think a rule should look like.
Producers could also leave comments that they don't think this issue needs to be regulated at all. Luckily, we're not to the actual rule making yet. And the Bush administration has made it clear that it will be up to the new administration to decide if or how to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And this is assuming that Congress doesn't act first.
Farmers took notice of this and made their opinions known. A lot of phone calls to me and a lot of face-to-face questions as I've been around the state. Some independent farm groups have also run hypothetical numbers on what this might cost producers. I've heard different figures on different types of animals. None of the number are good for livestock producers.
As a farmer myself, I'm very troubled by the numbers that have been put together by private groups. In any future greenhouse gas regulations ultimately include our producers, obviously, I'll have to fight to keep them included just like this fugitive dust rule that the EPA tried stick on farmers. There is things that producers can't control. And I hope EPA uses common sense and more of it than it did for the first dust rule.
There's no question that we need to have a strong livestock industry in Iowa to prosper. If President-elect Obama tries to include farmers in some kind of livestock assessment based on greenhouse gas emissions, I want my Iowans to know that I'm going to stand beside the producers and fight against such rule making.
Dan Looker? Tom Rider?
RIDER: Good morning, Senator. Senator, I want to ask you about the World Trade Organization. They have, apparently, reached some draft text modalities. Are there problems with what they're looking at now in terms of U.S. market access?
GRASSLEY: Oh, yes. The United States does not have market access we ought to have. And it's my latest information that Pasqual Ami (ph) is not going call, at least not this week as it was originally thought, a ministerial meeting. Governments are too far apart. And as far as I know, we're not satisfied with market access. So, hopefully, no meeting.
RIDER: Have you joined another group of senators that have expressed concerns on the latest developments on that, sir?
GRASSLEY: I have not joined another group of senators, but I've had a conversation, two weeks ago I believe it was, with Ambassador Schwab. She called me. I was in Iowa at the time. She called to brief me. And I told her my position has not changed. And I told her that I was worried that maybe towards the tail end of this administration that -- that -- that the president would try to maybe get something as part of legacy and maybe compromise too much to do it. So I told her that.
I did send a letter to the president expressing these sort of views. I don't have a letter back from the president. But I think it's better to express it directly to Ambassador Schwab. And she assured me that she was not going to do anything differently than she had in the past when she's walked away from some meetings. And I hope that's her position.
And I told her that I would be frustrated in the White House was trying to put pressure on her at the last minute to make some sort of a deal that I would call "Doha light."
You're going to call the names, aren't you, Casey?
MODERATOR: Yes, sir.
Gene Lucht, Iowa Farmer Today?
LUCHT: Yes, Senator. You mentioned, obviously, the EPA and livestock issue. Has there been many discussions among your colleagues in the Senate on this?
GRASSLEY: None whatsoever. The only discussions I've had is between my staff and me and also with a lot of Iowans on this subject. And it's got a lot of headlines in newspapers, probably even yours. Maybe you've written about it.
And so I'm very concerned about it. You know, and when I -- when I first read about it and the figures that came out -- and, of course, I've tried to clear up where we are. We aren't actually in rule making at this point. And so, you know, there's no rule for us to comment on.
But people are assuming that there's going to be such a rule. And if EPA is -- is thinking of something along this lines and the newspapers would report X number of dollars taxed per cow, you know, then when I read that headline, you kind get a feeling, well, what planet did these bureaucrats come from, you know, because there isn't going to be any livestock business in Iowa.
I mean, it's just a little bit like the fugitive dust rule. You know? The wind blows. You know, wind happens. And -- and the dust doesn't stay within the boundaries. So, you know, for us out there in Iowa, I mean, let's say for non-political people like me that are in Iowa, they're obviously going to look at Washington, D.C. and said where did these guys come from. You know?
So that's -- that's the way it hits me. And I'm sure that's the way it hits Iowans.
MODERATOR: Julie Harker, Brownfield? Ken Root, WHO?
ROOT: Senator, good morning. We obviously have the two-word quote of the day from you. Thank you.
I'd like to ask you another...
GRASSLEY: What is that two-word quote?
ROOT: Dust happens.
GRASSLEY: Oh, OK.
ROOT: Or wind blows, wind happens. Let's switch gears here.
GRASSLEY: Yes, go ahead.
ROOT: Along the same line, obviously, the Obama administration is saying change. But change in agriculture, you know, what change would you go along with toward food programs or toward social programs? Reduction of payments, for example, obviously one you've endorsed in the past.
Do you think there's in commonality in what this new administration may have and your long-term goals?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think you might have to divide your question up and not necessarily tie the two together. I think that we are in the beginning of a five-year farm program. And I don't think the administration, regardless of the budget situation, is going to change the farm program considering the fact it took almost a year to get one passed.
I think there might have some trade issues that are going to be detrimental to agriculture like, for instance, if they want to renegotiate NAFTA. I think that's a very serious situation for agriculture. And one of the first questions I'm going to ask to ask the administration is, to put them on the spot, you know, when are you going to start renegotiating NAFTA.
Now, I don't want to renegotiate NAFTA, but I want them to put up or shut up. And if there's going to renegotiate NAFTA, we need to find out about it and get on top of it. But I'm afraid -- I think that we're going to see some realism come from this administration and, particularly, in a time of recession that they're not going to want to renegotiate NAFTA. They aren't going to want to send that signal to the rest of the world, and they surely aren't going to want to hurt agriculture that has benefited so much from shipments of more of our stuff to Canada and to Mexico. It's been a great boom for agriculture. And I don't think they're going to want to hurt it, but if they -- if they were going to negotiate NAFTA, then that would be an issue as far as I'm concerned.
When it comes to social programs, I think that the social programs you might talk about that they are increasing, food stamps, for instance, might be beneficial to agriculture. Now, I'm not a great advocate for massive expansion of food stamp programs but, obviously, I'm for a safety net for people that includes unemployment compensation and includes food stamps. And so I'm going to be supportive of the program generally, but I don't want it to become a welfare program. I want it to continue to be a nutrition program.
And so I don't -- I guess, unless you've got something in mind, Ken, that they might be doing more specifically than your question implies, I don't see any -- anything detrimental to agriculture right now.
You might get down to 2010 and the issue of ethanol import duties, get down to the extension of the tax credit, tax incentive, get down to a point where somebody's talking about changing the RFS on ethanol and other biofuels. That could be a problem. But right now, I see an Obama administration probably being supportive of biofuels generally and not wanting to do anything to hurt ethanol.
ROOT: Well, Senator, to quickly follow up on that, I see you as idealistic enough in your views that they may be able to work with you in areas that would give greater emphasis to issues that have to do with the smaller farmer and to payment limitations. But I also think they would add on to that whether or not you would go with some programs that they wish to have.
GRASSLEY: Well, I'm going to look at each one of those separately. But, for sure, I would expect more support -- I would expect a massive amount of support from this administration on payment limitations and on things of that nature that would help the family farmer.
ROOT: Thank you, sir.
MODERATOR: Dan Skelton, Spencer?
SKELTON: Good morning, Senator. I want to stay with the new administration and the change theme and talk about regulations with Cuba. In your opinion, is it time to end the embargo with Cuba and would see an opportunity for that either as a legacy move by the Bush administration or a change move by the incoming Obama administration?
GRASSLEY: I think it would be more of a change on the Obama administration. As far as I'm concerned, changing things with Cuba are going to be directly related to the enhancement of political freedom there. And I think that's going to happen very slowly. But the extent to which it does happen, I would be supportive of it.
Short of that, I think I would continue to oppose an Obama administration that was going to -- to normalize relations with Cuba very quickly. I would see -- I would oppose that.
But I think that under the makeup of Congress now, they would be successful in accomplishing that. But I want to connect it to political freedoms because that's the hope for the people there. See, if you're really thinking about the destitution and the poverty of the Cuban people, it's directly related to the government controlling everything and rationing and depravity and the lack of encouragement of entrepreneurship.
And so when there's more political freedoms, there's going to be more economic freedom. And the people of Cuba are very entrepreneurial, and they will really advance out of poverty quickly. It will be a -- if that happened today, in ten years, they could be a very advanced society.
So if you're thinking about the average Cuban, you don't normalize relations and let the dictatorship continue. You do what you can to enhance people's freedom to enhance their economic advancement.
SKELTON: So you say you're opposed to ending the embargo at this point. Specifically, what sort of political reforms would you need to see before you could be in favor of ending the embargo?
GRASSLEY: All we need is elections. That's all we'd have to have.
SKELTON: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Stacia Cudd, National Farm Broadcasters? Gary Diguiseppe, Arkansas Radio Network? Philip Brasher with the Des Moines Register?
OK. I've read the entire list, was anyone added late or does anyone have a follow-up?
GRASSLEY: OK. Thank you all very much.