GRASSLEY: I'm going to be meeting tomorrow with the secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke. And I haven't had meetings with him before. And during our meeting, I want to bring up the importance of our country implementing free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. These agreements are vital to the economy, I guess you could say for the entire economy, but that particularly includes agriculture.
And if these programs are adopted, it would level the playing field for U.S. farmers and promote our exports. At present, our more than 99 percent of agricultural imports from Colombia and Panama come in to our country duty free, yet take the case in these other countries.
In Colombia, they can current apply tariffs up to 150 percent of imports of U.S. soybeans, 194 percent on imported U.S. corn. The U.S. trade promotion agreement would bring tariffs on both of these commodities down to zero, level the playing field for U.S. farmers.
Let's take a look at Panama. Panama tariffs have 30 percent on import of U.S. beef. That would be eliminated. The National Pork Producers Council predicts that, if we get our agreement with South Korea approved by Congress, once it's fully implemented, it would cause U.S. hog prices to be $10 higher than otherwise would have been the case.
Then I'd like to quote the American Farm Bureau Federation study of these agreements. Once they would be fully implemented for the three countries would result in almost an additional $2.4 billion in gains for U.S. agriculture each year.
So I think it's very clear that it's vital to our agriculture and to the entire U.S. economy that we
implement these trade agreements. Boosting our exports, expanding trade would help our economy to get moving again.
I hope that implementation of these trade agreements becomes a priority for President Obama. In my meet with Secretary Locke, I'll send a message to the administration yet again that it's time for the president to act on Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade agreements.
Tom in Yankton?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, what seems to be the holdup on these agreements? And what will it take to get these implemented and going, sir?
GRASSLEY: Oh, I think it's nothing but protectionism within the Democrat caucus of the House of Representatives. To some extent, in the U.S. Senate, but to a lesser extent in the U.S. Senate. And there's not much point of our bringing it up in the Senate -- well, we can't bring it up until the president proposes it, and the president wants to make sure he's got the votes because it takes a certain period of time for the vote to come up.
And so consequently, you know, you want to know you're set to go before you go. And then, quite frankly, I won't criticize the president because I believe deep down in his heart he's a free trader, but I can criticize him for not working hard enough on his own caucus. He ought to have tremendous influence over them.
Chris at DTN?
QUESTION: No questions at the moment, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Stacia?
Gary Digiuseppe?
QUESTION: I have no questions now, thank you.
GRASSLEY: Philip of the Des Moines Register?
QUESTION: You know, Senator, what do you think is going to happen with Murkowski's -- I guess either amendment or resolution depending on what she introduces. I'm not sure if they have said for sure. But what do you think the fate of that is going to be in the Senate?
And what -- will this have any message to the administration, do you think, about what kind of energy bill can pass the Senate?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think I'll give you -- give you a statement similar to what I answered the question at the Iowa Corn Growers in Marshalltown yesterday.
First of all, it can be brought up because it's kind of like trade agreements. It's kind of on a fast-track process. So once -- once it's introduced, it can be brought up.
Probably, I don't know to what extent the rule actually has to be finalized before she can move ahead. You happen to know I'm a co-sponsor of her effort. As a practical matter, I think it's difficult to get 51 votes when you've got 60 Democrats and they tend to so much follow the environmental line that there would be maybe trouble getting it passed.
And I wouldn't even want to say that all 40 Republicans would vote for it, but I think it overwhelmingly would have support of Republicans. But then let's suppose it passed the Senate. What about the House? I think it would be difficult there unless it becomes a big political issue between now and the election.
But then, you know, that process is subject to a veto. So if we wanted to override that veto, you effectively have to have two-thirds vote. So I think she's doing the right thing by doing, but I think it's a really tough road to hoe to be successful that way.
There's another route would be putting a rider on an appropriation bill that said, for one year or continue it for future years, but none of the money in this bill can be used to enforce rule such and such.
So on the EPA appropriations committee, we could put -- try to put such an amendment in.
I also, though, believe that maybe the way that EPA will be doing this -- because I'm not sure that the Supreme Court decision went much further than just say you have the authority to do this. But I believe that you're going to find business and agriculture and manufacturing tying this thing up in the courts for a few years before it gets fully implemented.
So I think that going the EPA route is very difficult -- not that they can't do it constitutionally -- and I'm only saying that based upon what the Supreme Court says because I don't have the Supreme Court was interpreting that law right. But -- and the bottom line of it is, if your question then extends to the impact that it would have on Congress, I don't think you're going to have cap-and-trade come up this year even though Boxer and Reid say it's coming up.
I think, after the negative impact -- or negative receipt by the public of health-care reform and how controversial it is -- and cap-and-trade's controversial in and of itself -- I'm not sure Democrats want it discuss that stuff during an election year. And then the failure at Copenhagen would be another issue as well.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up. What's the point of this -- what Murkowski is doing? As you point out, it has to go through the House, and even if it passed there, it would be vetoed and you'd need a two-thirds vote...
GRASSLEY: Well, I think the point is to show that we're using every tool to either get a good bill or a tool to make sure that if you don't like this, you're doing everything you can to stop it.
That was Philip.
George Ford?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator.
This is probably not the normal agriculture question. Right now, there's a bill -- it's been in the House of Representatives -- to essentially put FedEx Express on the same footing, operating under the same rules as UPS. FedEx operates under the Railway Labor Act. UPS operates under the National Labor Relations Act.
And basically, UPS says they want FedEx to operate under the same rules which actually could leave it open to strikes and so forth. Whereas, under the Railway Labor Act, things go on regardless of whether there's a local strike. There's, you know, a system that keeps things running.
What is your feeling on this when it gets to the Senate? Is this something you feel needs to be done, or should we leave things the way they are?
GRASSLEY: I met with FedEx people last week on this issue or maybe it was the week before. And I met with them in Des Moines. So I was meeting with local people on it.
And they were speaking very highly in favorable of it. I said until language comes out, I'm not going to take a stand because I don't really know what I'm taking a stand on. But I can tell you this. It looks to me like the strategy is not to raise the issue in the United States Senate but to have it go through the House and be conferenceable and then have it be maintained -- I mean, there's their wish to have it be maintained in conference.
So I think in the United States Senate, we may not vote up or down on the issue. And it would be voting to approve the conference committee or not. And since it will be part of the FFA -- FAA reauthorization bill, there's a lot of bigger things in the FAA authorization bill other than this FedEx thing.
So it probably will not get a direct challenge in the Senate. And I think what FedEx is trying to -- by using this strategy is trying to avoid a filibuster on it during the first go around.
QUESTION: All right. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Yes. I guess I'd add, plus the fact that FedEx feels that we ought to have an FAA reauthorization because, you know, the big issue with FAA reauthorization other than your local airports is the next generation, called next gen for short, of getting landing and taking off and separation of airplanes in the air done by global GSP as opposed to doing it through your local tower.
And then the -- that's not an end in itself. The end in itself is that when you have this sort of control, you're able to operate the landing and taking off and the flying of airplanes much closer and be more efficient and safe a lot of energy besides cost.
Let's see. Who else? Anybody else want to jump in?
QUESTION: This is Dan at Spencer.
GRASSLEY: Yes?
QUESTION: U.S. negotiators are in Russia right now talking about some of those hiccups in meat trade with Russia. What do you expect to come out of that?
GRASSLEY: Well, I don't know what will come out of it, but it's very, very important that we get some resolution of it because Russia is a big market. The only thing is you lose a lot of leverage because Russia is not in the WTO. And so we're negotiating one on one without a resolution process that you have through the WTO.
So it's really a little -- the rule of law in international trade doesn't apply except as Russia wants it to apply and like we're pleading for it to apply. But it also looks like Russia is taking advantage of not being in the WTO to use non-tariff trade barriers to build up their own industry of agriculture -- food production.
And so you get into things like poultry being cleansed the way we do it in the United States. They don't like it. With other country, the rule of law would probably say we're OK. Or if it isn't, there would be a resolution process that would take us through to find out who's right or wrong.
Then they want to keep out our pork because they want to build up their pork industry. And it's my understanding -- and I don't know exactly what is coming up under beef as well as to discuss. So let's just hope we're going to make some progress.
But, you know, Russia takes an opportunity in several ways to push their thumb in the eye of Uncle Sam, so don't be surprised if it wouldn't happen this time.
OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, this is Gary Digiuseppe.
GRASSLEY: Yes?
QUESTION: Let me quickly follow up on what you were just talking about. Because these events have been taking place frequently in recent years and members of Congress say this is just going to push back Russia's accession to the WTO still further, would it be in our best interest to bite the bullet, sponsor their accession to the WTO and, therefore, place them under the aegis of that body?
GRASSLEY: No because we've had certain demands of them to get into the WTO, and I guess we want those demands met. And so consequently, I would not do that.
And, right now, Russia has withdrawn their efforts to get into the WTO. So even if we wanted them to start it up again, they wouldn't want to do it.
Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator Grassley, this is Dan Looker. I'm sorry. I got on the call late.
I just wondered if there are any new developments on the tax credit for biodiesel. I keep hearing people saying that it will come up early this year.
GRASSLEY: No.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea when that would be?
GRASSLEY: Yes. Why don't you call in tomorrow. I have a meeting with Senator Baucus today at 5:30 or 5 o'clock maybe.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: And I could give you a report tomorrow.
QUESTION: That'll be great. I'll do that first thing in the morning.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: OK. Bye. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, on that meeting, is that just going to focus on that tax credit, or are you dealing with the estate tax and all the others that are dangling out there as well?
GRASSLEY: Yes. All of them.
Now, I better make it clear to you as well as to Dan that I have not seen an agenda for a meeting today. We work out a bipartisan agenda. But based upon the fact that Baucus and I sent this letter and made a press release that we were going to make taxes our first order of business this year, I think that that's what we're going to be talking about.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: Anybody else? OK. Thank you all.
QUESTION: Thank you, Senator.
END