GRASSLEY: On August the 17th, I'll be hosting my 12th ambassador's tour. This tour gives foreign diplomats stationed in the embassies here in Washington, D.C., the opportunity to get out and experience Iowa for a week.
We're expecting representatives from more than 60 countries participating this year.
I started this tour in '86 to help Iowa's struggling agricultural economy when we were in that depression of the '80s. We blend agriculture and industry to bring about, really, additional opportunities for Iowa to access global markets.
During the tour, we showcase Iowa's resources, work on greater economic collaboration between Iowa and other countries, and expose Iowa to the rich diversity of the world community.
GRASSLEY: Our tours this year will take us through some of Des Moines, Huxley, Carroll, Ralston, Storm Lake, Wall Lake, Sioux City, Fort Dodge, Webster City, Iowa Falls, Ames, Nevada, Marshalltown, Newton and Ankeny.
During the week, we will visit several businesses. We'll also visit a family farm, and end the week at the Iowa State Fair. Those two visits are probably the highlight of the week for many of our ambassadors.
One of the best parts of our dignitaries -- for them is the evenings that they spend in the homes of Iowa families. This gives them a very up-close look at our people. And, of course, this is our best asset. Our guest then take this knowledge of people, land and businesses of Iowa back to their home countries to begin any collaboration that will produce business and in turn produce jobs.
Tom Rider?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, I was wondering, with the food safety bill passing the House, they did make some changes to it. What changes does the Senate have to make to make that a better bill in your mind, sir?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think some changes already made in the House help. And that's the extent to which they keep these bureaucrats off of the family farm and the extent to which they aren't charging $500 to visit the farm. And I hope that those -- I don't think there's any problem of those things staying in the Senate.
Now, beyond that, I haven't focused on anything else, but that's going to make it easier to get through the Senate.
But I think that you'll find a couple committees in the Senate taking a very close look at it.
Gene, "Iowa Farmer"?
QUESTION: No question. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Tom Steever?
QUESTION: No questions here. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Ken Root?
QUESTION: Senator, I wonder if you can get into that cash-for- clunkers issue that you're having. There's quite a few people that seem to be frugal people who are wanting to utilize this to buy vehicles. What's your view on whether it should be passed by the Senate and money taken out of the money that was supposed to be for ethanol and renewable fuels and moved into this program?
GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, I think that's a very chancey and negative offset that's not very real. And I think it's, kind of, playing games. They're going to have to have a more real offset than that to get my support for it.
But even before you get to that point, there are several things that I want to read from a letter -- and I'm not going to read in depth, but we'll get you a copy of the letter so that you know. And this is a program -- this is a letter to the secretary of transportation that I sent yesterday pointing out that there's just a lot of problems with this program, a lot of unnecessary confusion and frustration for the auto -- auto dealers. And we've got to crack those first.
And I'm going to read one sentence and then five highlights just to give you an idea of some of the issues we're bringing up with the secretary of transportation. These have to be worked out before we ought to put another $1 billion or $2 billion of taxpayers' money into the program.
Quote, "While the program has been unquestionably popular with consumers, this -- this" -- I'm reading from a letter than has come from the Iowa Automobile Dealers Association, and then my letter to the secretary of transportation is basically asking him to consider these issues that have been brought up.
GRASSLEY: So I'm going to start the quote again.
"While the program has been unquestionably popular with consumers, dealers are facing significant obstacles and frustrations in dealing with the online registration and voucher application process administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I acknowledged these significant undertakings and short-term frame imposed by the NHTSA toward the implementation of this program."
In other words, they didn't take enough time to get it under way in the first place.
So there are, one, registration issues; two, system-stability issues; three, vehicle-eligibility issues; four, engine-disabling procedure; and five, orderly termination of the program. And those things need to be solved before I think we're going to be putting $2 billion more into that program.
But whatever we put in has to have a legitimate offset and a reasonable offset, and since the stimulus is only spending out at about 10 percent at this point, there ought to be a lot of surplus money in the stimulus package that could in turn be put into this program if we're going to have it.
ROOT: Senator, only got one comment for you, and that is from a person who was wanting to be a part of this. They said, "I'm of that economic class that has saved my money. I can't take part in much else of this program. This is the only time I'm going to get any of the stimulus money back, is if I can utilize it to buy one of these vehicles."
GRASSLEY: Well, if he's a working person, he got back $400 -- maybe -- I think $400 in a -- in a reduction in withholding. If he's not a working person then he obviously didn't qualify for that.
ROOT: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Well, and if he's even a retired person, he got $250 back.
ROOT: Yes, but he didn't get $4,500 for a vehicle that was worth about a third of that.
GRASSLEY: No, I was commenting on the fact that he said he didn't get anything out of the -- out of the stimulus package, because he would have got the rebates and a -- and a reduction in withholding, one or the other.
Dan Skelton?
SKELTON: Good morning, Senator. I wanted to ask you about your ambassadors tour.
You mentioned that you -- this will be the 17th year that you've done it. Can you point to any concrete results in terms of trade with some of these countries as a result of your -- your ambassador tours?
GRASSLEY: Well, yes. Probably six -- I think it was only six years ago we signed a contract at the Iowa State Fair with poultry producers in Colombia to buy 40 million bushels of soybeans, as just one example.
But the reason why I don't know about a lot of specifics is because we don't do any follow-up. This is just to open doors. And then the Iowa Department of Economic Development, who's a co-sponsor of this with me, you've got the local chambers of congress -- commerce -- and then you've got the local businesses. And the extent to which they follow up with their -- with their contacts is businesses that I would not know about.
But we go to a lot of businesses that are already doing a lot of international trade anyway, so it's -- it's probably going to expand on what they're already doing.
And then another opening is the fact that people from these embassies, when they get back to Washington, they make contacts back to their own countries that I hear about, but never know the extent to which it's fruitful in bringing actual business to Iowa.
QUESTION: And, Senator, if you could, could you share with us the name of the family farm that you'll be visiting?
GRASSLEY: Do we have that down so we can do that?
I've got to get it right here for you now. It's the Peyton family.
QUESTION: In Sac City or Linton?
GRASSLEY: Linton.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Chris Clayton? Stacia Cudd?
OK, I've gone through the list. Anybody else added?
QUESTION: Senator, it's Philip Brasher.
GRASSLEY: Yes, go ahead, Phil.
QUESTION: I've already missed -- I missed the very opening, so you may have already addressed this.
But in terms -- back to the food safety bill that passed the House, could you address the couple of things there that I know are in the Durbin bill -- the standards for fruit and vegetable farms that FDA would set -- or the authority for FDA to set safety standards for fruit and vegetable farms and the $500 user fee for processors?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think for sure, if the House hadn't taken that $500 out, it would have been taken out in the United States Senate.
And also the question of the right of people from FDA to go on the individual farms, the fact that that was settled in the House of Representatives, before it got to the Senate, I think that that's another thing that helps its passage in the United States Senate.
It appears that a lot of the problems that we've seen about recalls, which is one of the reasons, supposedly, to certify these farms, have been in processing, not in -- not directly from the farm. So I think you're going to have questions here in the United States Senate about the -- the -- I supposed the bureaucratic red tape that goes along with that at the farm level, when most of it comes at the processing level.
QUESTION: But even for -- you don't think the Senate would even allow inspections, safety standards, for fruit and vegetable?
GRASSLEY: I don't want to say -- I have not drawn a conclusion on that is the best thing for me to say. And I don't think I should speculate because I haven't studied it enough at this point.
QUESTION: And what about the -- the user fee, the $500 registration fee, or whatever you call it, for processors?
QUESTION: That's still in there.
GRASSLEY: Yes, that's -- you know, where -- that's where most of the problems come from, so maybe, like we do for pharmaceuticals -- there's an inspection fee for pharmaceuticals; maybe it's legitimate for the processors here.
QUESTION: So that might stay in for the Senate?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
OK, anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, I'd like -- Ken Root -- I'd like to ask you one more on climate change. Many are now saying that it's a political reality whether it's a reality otherwise and you in the Senate have got to handle it or the Obama administration will come back with potentially onerous regulations that they can enforce through the EPA.
GRASSLEY: Well, they have that right to do. And I think we have the responsibility to pass a responsible law and not just to pass anything because EPA can otherwise step in.
Because it seems to me that -- that the same arguments that are being used in the United States Senate would be -- bureaucratic or would -- would be issues that came up if the bureaucracy were going to impose it. It'd be same unpopular. It'd be same very expensive to the consumer.
It would -- if it included cap-and-tax in it, it would be very costly to the consumer.
GRASSLEY: If the EPA goes ahead and does it, you're going to have the same or maybe even worse economic injustice between one section of the country versus its competitiveness with another section of the country. You're still going to have it be very onerous on the Midwest and the Southeast, where we're so dependent on coal.
And you're -- and the most important thing is whatever EPA does, that Congress might not do -- and Congress not doing is probably because of an unlevel playing field with China and India, that -- that would export all of our manufacturing jobs to China.
And you get coming -- you would have coming out of EPA regulations then where even the director of EPA testified before the committees that if the United States does it just by itself, it's not going to accomplish any reduction in CO2.
And so then you get back to where it's got to be handled anyway at the international agreement that applies the same strictures to China and India as it does to the United States, so we don't lose all of our jobs to China.
QUESTION: Senator, if Congress -- if EPA tried to regulate on its own under the Clean Air Act, would Congress allow that to stand?
GRASSLEY: Well, you get into a situation where those rules under a law that's been on the books probably for 12 years now, only used once as far as I know -- but Congress could veto those. And I would think that -- that there would be a big push to veto.
But, again, getting back to the reality of -- of congressional opposition to a lot of the things that have been proposed in this legislation, do you think that EPA would go that far, particularly when the director of EPA is testifying before Congress a go-it-alone approach of the United States isn't going to reduce CO2 worth a spit in the ocean?
QUESTION: Senator, are you still getting citizen response to this legislation?
GRASSLEY: Yes, without a doubt. I get daily reports from my calls in Iowa. Of course, you get four issues: Sotomayor, Planned Parenthood, opposition to health care reform, and opposition to cap-and-trade. And so we're always getting a few calls on cap-and-trade.
OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, Gary Digiuseppe.
GRASSLEY: Yes -- oh, I didn't mean to leave you out, Gary.
QUESTION: I apologize for not introducing myself at the start, but I'm here.
GRASSLEY: OK.
QUESTION: I'm working on an article actually for Farmers Hot Line, which wants me to review the concept of foreign ownership of U.S. beef packers, which, you know, gained quite a bit of attention when JBS acquired Swift and then bid for Smithfield and National last year.
Do you see any difficulties with a foreign-owned company owning a major U.S. beef packer? Or, you know, contrarily are there advantages to bringing this outside money into the business?
GRASSLEY: Well, a lot of times in agriculture, you've heard me over the last 30 years raise concerns about too much foreign investment in agriculture units, probably more land than the processing that you're talking about.
I've only approached this from the standpoint thus far of the competitiveness within agriculture processing and the extent to which the Brazilian company was coming in and buying up and now are not getting permission to do one, and I think pulling out of the other -- maybe that's for economic purposes and maybe that's short term.
GRASSLEY: But those -- those antitrust issues are no longer before us.
But I think the strongest point for me to make is not just foreign ownership per se, but what does it do to the competitiveness of American processing -- agricultural processing, and how does that impact the family farmer. That's where I am going to approach it in the first instance.
QUESTION: Do you see that JBS' entry into the U.S. market has made a difference in competitiveness one way or the other?
GRASSLEY: Well, you know, I -- I think yes, but then when you hit the rulings by the Justice Department, you know, they're the final arbiter unless somebody takes it to court. And I'm not in a position to do that, so I guess you have to accept that -- that what they've done so far by not letting them buy that one plant, or by not buying that one plant, that that satisfies the antitrust. You have to accept it.
QUESTION: OK. But you're saying you have a subjective feeling that it has adversely affected competitiveness.
GRASSLEY: Yes, without a doubt.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: You bet.
Good-bye everybody, unless somebody else -- nobody else is jumping in?