Transcription of Senator Grassley's Agriculture News Conference

Interview

GRASSLEY: I want to talk about the 2008 Farm Bill, talk about

how we tried to help African-American farmers who were denied entry to

the Pigford Settlement. We included that in a bill as a big step

forward in our efforts to give black farmers who were unjustly

discriminated against an opportunity to have their claim heard again

in court.

Really, it gives them a second bite at the apple that doesn't

give them any particular rights other than to establish with the court

that they have a claim. If they have a claim, then they get it

reopened. Otherwise, they didn't have access and they were

discriminated against in the first place.

This is a starting point to help these farmers. It was clear

that they would need to have more done in the future to ensure that

everybody was given an opportunity to have their case heard. So

today, I'm introducing, in addition to what's in the Farm Bill,

bipartisan legislation that would ensure that African-American farmers

who successfully filed claims as a result of the 2008 Farm Bill

receive the funds that they're entitled to.

It doesn't give any money to these farmers. They win their case.

The hundred million dollars that was in the bill to settle some of

these cases may not go far enough. So this Treasury fund, which was

used in the original Pigford plaintiffs' and attorneys' fees under the

consent decree do the same thing for people that are filing anew under

the Farm Bill.

Also, to help keep taxpayer's committee from being used for

fraudulent purposes, we include a five-year imprisonment or fine for

people engaging in fraud related to the claims.

Senator Hagan of North Carolina is co-sponsoring the legislation

with me.

Tom Rider?

QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.

Senator, your colleague, Max Baucus, is introducing a trade bill

with Cuba. What would need to be in it for you to support it, sir?

GRASSLEY: Oh, nothing in the bill makes a difference. What

we're after -- what I'm after is the release of prisoner -- political

prisoners in Cuba and free elections in Cuba. And the reason for that

is the present political situation has deprived the Cuban people of

any standard of living -- I guess you could classify it as some of the

worst of the most destitute nations in the world. And it's a very

rich country. That standard of living would be much more if people

had more freedom.

So, yes, we can talk about helping them through trade, but it

isn't going to do any good until we get the political situation and

the economic situation straightened out so that people aren't

deprived.

In other words, if you go to Cuba, you'll find that they're still

driving cars that we drove in the 1950's here. And you can see them

in just the deprived state because the Castro-ites running the country

have -- have impoverished people.

And so I want to help enhance the standard of living. And I

don't know how you can do that with just some more trade. Now, people

are going to make the argument we had 40 years of this situation; it

hasn't changed Castro's mind whatsoever. So the argument goes we

ought to open trade and somehow it's going to help the people.

Well, every other country in the world has had open trading with

China -- or, I mean, with Cuba, and in 40 years, it hasn't changed

Castro's mind either. So I don't want somebody using the argument

with me that we're the only country that does this, so we aren't

accomplishing anything with reform in Cuba.

Well, open trade hasn't accomplished anything for those countries

that have been doing it either. So I think we ought to keep the

pressure on.

Dan Looker?

QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.

I just wondered do you support Senator Thune's bill that would

prohibit the EPA from using indirect land use in calculating the

renewable fuel standards?

GRASSLEY: Yes. And I'm a little disappointed that they didn't

ask us to be a co-sponsor because every time I've done anything with

-- with biofuels, I've always sought to work very closely with them.

And maybe it was just an oversight on their part, I don't know.

QUESTION: Do they have...

GRASSLEY: But I'm surely in favor of it, and I complement Thune

for moving ahead.

QUESTION: Sir, do they have other co-sponsors, or did he just

introduce it on his own?

GRASSLEY: Just by himself.

QUESTION: I see. OK.

GRASSLEY: Yes. And, listen, let me explain to you why I think

that it's right that he do that. First of all, I don't know how this

indirect land use stuff got included in some energy legislation a

while back. If I knew what I knew about it now, I would have

highlighted it and did what I could to change it.

But it's a stupid factor from a couple standpoints. There is no

sound science backing it up. And everything EPA does ought to be

based on sound science.

Another -- just the rationale behind it is stupid because the

theory is that somebody down in France or somebody down in Brazil,

some farmer down there, is just waiting to plow up another acre of

land because Chuck Grassley might sell some more corn for ethanol

instead of for food.

Well, now, how ridiculous is that? It's just absolutely

ridiculous that there's people just waiting to see if we don't grow

more corn for ethanol. And then I guess there's a third factor that's

stupid. And that is that Iowa farmers should be penalized because

some farmer in Brazil might plow up a little more land.

And so you've got the sound science, you've got the ridiculous

economic factor that farmers in another country are -- are observing

what every farmer in America does, and then you've got the unfairness

of it. We're going to hurt Iowa farmers because of something Brazil

is doing.

QUESTION: OK. Thank you very much.

GRASSLEY: Tom Steever?

QUESTION: Thank you, Senator.

I see that Senate Finance is holding a hearing this week on

auctioning under cap-and-trade. What's your feeling on that?

GRASSLEY: My feeling is that it's going to be the biggest tax to

hit American people ever, and it's going -- it's going to be a tax

every time you turn on your lights. It's basically a utilities tax.

It's affecting 3,$000 more taxes per family of four, and it's just

going to -- it's just going to be utter restructuring of the economy

of the United States.

Now, is global warming a problem? Yes. What we ought to be

doing, though, is doing it in international agreement because I want

to save people who are promoting global warming legislation in the

United States and in the Congress from themselves because these folks

are the very same folks that, for years, have been crying about

outsourcing jobs, manufacturing jobs to China.

Well, if we pass a bill strangling our economy and putting a cap-

and-trade tax on, it's going to cause more manufacturing to go to

China. So an international agreement would be a level playing field

for making -- for American manufacturing compared to China

manufacturing in China had to live by the same rules that we live by.
And so I'm trying to save the people that have been complaining

for so many years about manufacturing jobs going to China passing a

bill that will cause more jobs to go to China as long as China's not

doing its share. And you understand China is a problem because they

emit more CO2 into the air than we do.

Ken Root?

QUESTION: Senator, good morning.

I wonder if you could comment on your view of how that our

government, including our USDA, handled the H1N1 flu up to this point.

GRASSLEY: Well, it's only nine days away from when we first

heard news of it. So I have to be careful what I say, and it's based

upon the impressions that I get from the media and the reaction. And

I think we have done a fairly good job, number one, of alerting

people; number two, following up with additional research on vaccine

and following up on helping farmers not to be hurt by it by explaining

that swine flu really is not swine flu that, fact, pigs are going to

get human flu and that it's H1N1, and it's not swine flu because you

can't transfer it.

Now, farmers have been hurt, but I think our government is taking

appropriate action so it doesn't get hurt worse in explaining and

using -- and not using the term "swine flu" quite as much. And then I

took the advantage of the -- to the fact that some keys were thinking

it could be transferred from pigs to humans by eating the meat, which

it can't, and were going to blockade American pork. So I signed a

letter to Obama yesterday urging him to continue to work -- keep

foreign markets open.

Then I think one additional thing that Congress is going to be

involved in, and that is maybe more money for -- for fighting it, I

think, through the manufacturer, Tamiflu, in addition to getting some

vaccine.

The vaccine, though, could not be developed in time for this

particular outbreak, but it can for future outbreaks. And if it could

be manufactured for this outbreak, it might upset every manufacturer

of vaccine who, right now, is manufacturing vaccine for the normal

flues that we get shots for in the fall.

QUESTION: Senator, do you favor any direct compensation to hog

farmers for losses incurred because of this flu?

GRASSLEY: No, I don't think that I could do that because we

didn't do the same thing for beef when BSE was announced, and it

obviously hurt our markets tremendously then.

QUESTION: Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Dan Skelton?

QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.

Picking up on that theme, no direct compensation, but do you see

some assistance coming in the form of additional pork products in

school lunch or export programs? That sort of thing?

GRASSLEY: Well, that's always a possibility. And that's an

ongoing program, and that's a program that's flexible enough to be

used whether pork prices are just high or whether the needs of

commodities are great, so you need to purchase even though prices

might not be low and for this instance as well.

Yes, it's a very established program and we're set up to handle

it as well.

QUESTION: Senator, if I might ask another question. In terms of

planting process in your farming area near New Hampton, how are you

coming?

GRASSLEY: Near New Hartford.

QUESTION: Excuse me.

GRASSLEY: Well, across the road from me -- I live in Butler

County -- is Grundy County. And in my neighborhood, the two John

Deere tractors that were sitting there in the field to put anhydrous

on a week ago Friday were still there Sunday. But I think they would

be working Monday. Our planning operation was shut down from Saturday

to Friday and planted just a little bit on Friday.

And then on Monday -- or I mean, on Saturday -- and then on

Monday, yesterday, we were prepared to go with corn if -- if where we

needed to plant yet. We've got 70 percent of our corn in. Where we

were going to plant corn, if it is ready, we were going to continue to

plant corn.

But if that ground was not ready, we were going to move ahead

with soy beans. And we have not sprayed yet, but we're going to start

spraying this week.

QUESTION: Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Chris Clayton?

QUESTION: Senator, if we could go back to the -- the issue on

the climate change legislation real quickly, you mentioned that we

shouldn't do anything without a global agreement. The argument that

the administration is making that we need to do something to take --

to have to -- to take to the UN climate change meeting in Copenhagen

in December to help craft a global agreement based somewhat on what we

are doing.

Do you see any merit in that argument that, you know...

GRASSLEY: None whatsoever because this president believes that

we need to have a global agreement. He's got complete power to

negotiate. And -- and complete power to negotiate. And it's what

this president believes and his credibility with other nations, which

is obviously much greater than Bush's on this issue, I don't think

there's a problem negotiating whatever he wants to negotiate.

Stacia?

Philip?

OK. I've called all the names. Anybody want to jump in?

QUESTION: Senator, Gary Diguiseppe.

GRASSLEY: I'm sorry I missed you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. I was a little late.

I want to follow up further on Chris' question and your response.

We tried the international deal with Kyoto, and the United States

declined to adopt it. How will the prospect that we come up with

other global warming plan, President Obama takes it to Copenhagen and

says here it is, take it or leave it?

GRASSLEY: Well, I would say that -- that every nation at the

table would be confounded, first of all, insulted secondly. It's not

the way you do good-faith negotiations. And I think the very

necessary thing for us to do is to make sure China is included, and

you're not going to shove something down China's throat.

So then where are you? We've passed a bill. We're stuck with

reducing CO2. China's not. And we've got nothing. I mean -- well,

we've got -- we've got the American economy sacrificing to the benefit

of manufacturing moving to China.
QUESTION: You could make the bill contingent upon international

adoption.

GRASSLEY: Well, we could, but that's not the -- the intent of

the people that are writing it. The people that are writing it right

now don't care if we lose for manufacturing to China even though

they've been campaigning against that for a long time and badmouthing

Republicans for not doing anything about it.

And so they're intent to go ahead even if it hurts the United

States because they think the United States should do this for its own

reasons.

QUESTION: OK. I also wanted to ask you about reports I'm seeing

that Senator Baucus is working up a bill to further liberalize trade

to Cuba. I see a number the Democratic co-sponsors. Are you working

with him on that legislation?

GRASSLEY: No, I won't -- I will not work with him on that

legislation.

QUESTION: OK. What's wrong with it?

GRASSLEY: Because I believe that -- that we have a

responsibility to promote political freedom, and the -- they need to

release their political prisoners and have free elections because

those things are necessary for a free-market economy and a free-market

economy is the only thing that's going to improve the livelihood of

the Cuban people who are some of the most destitute of impoverished

nations.

And the argument is used that if we -- we -- that we ought to do

that, as Baucus suggests, because we've been out of trade with them

for 40 years and it hasn't done any good to promote freedom, et

cetera, in Cuba. So why not throw in the sponge?

Well, the argument -- that works both ways. Every other

country's had trade relations with China -- or, I mean, with Cuba --

and it hasn't done any good either. So that argument just doesn't

wash with me.

QUESTION: I was going to ask you about China. Do we hold China

to those same standards? Democracy and free elections in an open

market?

GRASSLEY: I have seen -- well, we surely do for an open market,

and they have obligations under the WTO to do that. And we -- and in

regard to movement towards political freedom, not much in China, but

some at the local level.

But for sure, movements towards entrepreneur -- promoting

entrepreneurship much greater than in Cuba.

QUESTION: Thanks.

GRASSLEY: Anybody else? OK. Thank you all very much.

Source