SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA
TELECONFERENCE
MAY 26, 2009
GRASSLEY: A couple weeks ago, the new attorney general for anti- trust made some promising comments about her division within the Justice Department putting more focus on competition in agriculture. Well, that was good news to me because I never thought the Justice Department cared anything about agriculture.
I've expressed strong reservations about some specific anti- business mergers and the continued bigger-is-better trend in agriculture. Agriculture has consolidated to the point where family farmers, independent producers, and other small-market participants don't have equal access to fair and competitive markets. It's also a lot easier for large companies to engage in anti-competitive and predatory business behavior.
I continue to be concerned about the increased concentration in the industry, that it's going to lead to fewer product choices and higher product prices for American consumers. So it's important that we have vigilant anti-trust enforcement looking out to protect consumers and ensure that there's fair and open marketplace in agriculture like there is in other segments of our economy.
And as I've said, I've never really thought that the agriculture -- or that the Justice Department has paid much attention to this. I appreciate that General Varney has shown concern about agriculture concentration, and I'm interested in learning more about her plans. So today I'm sending a letter asking how the anti-trust division will increase anti-trust oversight and enforcement of mergers, acquisitions and business practices in our farming community.
I'll let you call the names.
STAFF: OK. Dan Looker, Successful Farming?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
I know you and others who are supporters of the ethanol industry have been very critical of the -- the actions of the Grocery Manufacturers Association last year and the fact that food prices did not drop along with other commodity prices last fall. And I wondered do you think that concentration and, perhaps, anti-competitive practices are one of the reasons they've been able to keep food prices high?
GRASSLEY: Well, the answer is more probably in the area of speculation than there would be anti-trust. What my feeling is it would probably fall more within the jurisdiction of the commodity futures trading organization and the role of speculators in driving up energy prices, particularly, petroleum and the impact that that has had on corn and soybean prices which, in turn, then it can be said drove up the price of food generally.
But, also, the -- it was difficult for them to attack speculators because they're kind of faceless. It would be difficult for them to attack big oil, but ethanol has kind of been the scapegoat for a lot of things lately. And so they picked ethanol.
But I have raised questions about anti-trust in a lot of areas of mergers, Continental and Cargill as an example. We didn't stop the merger, but we did make sure that there was some selloff. But I wouldn't blame Justice entirely for the increased price of food. I just think that -- that the -- that the industry as a whole wanted to raise prices.
Now, if there was collusion among the grocery manufacturers, then I would say that, you know, an outright violation of law. People go to prison for doing those things. So I don't think they're stupid enough to do it that way. But they're going to continue to scapegoat whatever they can.
QUESTION: Thank you.
STAFF: Tom Rider, WNAX?
Gene Lucht, Iowa Farmer Today?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Good morning.
QUESTION: I have to ask the obvious question. The word is that Judge Sotomayor is going to be the nominee for the Supreme Court. Any thoughts?
GRASSLEY: I've got lots of thoughts. They start out positive because I don't remember from a long time ago when she was nominated to be chief judge. Obviously, I faced her when she went on the circuit court. I faced her at that particular time, but I have no memories of that.
A president is entitled to nominate who he wants to nominate. I would say that for a Republican president, so I have to say it as a Democrat president. She does have a record for our review but, obviously, I'm just now today starting to look at that record and will be consulting with my staff on the key points that I ought to be reading about her there.
But -- so other than that, I would say she starts out with a clean slate. But I think you have to remember that the last 25 years of reviewing justices has been entirely different than reviewing justices for the first 200-year history of our country. There's one time a name was sent up, and within four hours, the person had been approved to a judgeship.
GRASSLEY: Lately, it's taken weeks and weeks and weeks. And that trend started 25 years ago with the elevation of Chief Justice Rehnquist to the chief justiceship. And then it followed with Bork being "borked" -- as the new verb came about.
And consequently, all of the nominees, for the most part, have had very long and very thorough investigations compared to the first 200-year history of our country. And it's kind of a new role for the Senate, and I think it's going to be just as thorough this time, I think just as long this time, and it ought to.
This is a pattern that was set when we had a Republican president and Democrats wanted to make sure that people that they didn't approve of weren't approved. And so if -- if the Democrat Party expects that all of their members of the United States Senate, then Republicans are going to expect that out of a Republican minority in the Senate.
That's nothing sinister about it; it's just a new approach to Senate confirmation of judges and justices over the last 25 years. And it's a precedent that is pretty deeply ingrained now and will apply to Sotomayor as it applies to other people and has applied to other people.
STAFF: Tom Steever, Brownfield?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
The -- there is continued talk now about concern in the delays in bringing free-trade agreements up for a vote in Congress. What's your degree of confidence that these will be brought up in a timely fashion and will be dealt with?
GRASSLEY: I don't have a feel that they're going to be brought up very soon, and that's a sad situation because a lot of these things are doing nothing more than being fair to America as America has been fair to the rest of the world. In other words, in the case of Colombia and Panama, we've let their products come in practically duty free for the last three or four decades. So we get a chance to have a free-trade agreement with Colombia to get our products into their country due free. We ought to take advantage of that.
But can you believe it? The very same labor unions that have been complaining about the outsource of manufacturing jobs over the last couple decades are the ones that are holding up the approval of these trade treaties that give us a level playing field to Panama and Colombia.
In other words, a level playing field means that we're going to be able to send our manufactured products in there, create good-paying jobs here at home, and just have the best of environment for our manufacturing community, an environment that we don't have now and we ought to have.
You know, can you imagine Caterpillars that could have been made in Peoria going to Colombia would pay a 35 percent tariff. Coming from Caterpillar in Europe, you don't have to pay any tariff. So it means that Caterpillar workers in Europe are going to have jobs, and there's going to be layoffs in Peoria. It just doesn't make sense that people in Europe -- unions in Europe would -- would have jobs, and the very same unions in Peoria would be fighting a treaty that would allow Caterpillars made in Peoria go to Colombia duty free. In other words, be competitive with Europe.
STAFF: Ken Root, WHO?
QUESTION: Senator, good morning.
I wonder if you could talk about the listening sessions on animal identification and the fact that many of the people there that are opposed are working as a coalition and if you think that is going to cause the secretary to remain seemingly adamant that we're going to have a mandatory system.
GRASSLEY: Well, I haven't been able to follow it very close, so my remarks are probably a little bit removed from the specific question because so far, I haven't been briefed or read about the coalition fighting it. But I can tell you that -- not from my recent town meetings but maybe going back a year or two, I could sense a lot of animosity towards animal ID both coming from people that are concerned that maybe their 4-H farming operation for their kids would not be able to move forward or they wouldn't be able to market their stuff because the overhead of identification would be too expensive and another group of people that were involved that did not want the government to have access to their property that comes with the site identification and regulation that goes with animal ID.
So I sense that what you're saying is that this is a very active coalition now showing up at these meetings. I would hope that it would have some impact on the secretary of agriculture for the reason that -- that -- what's the purpose of having a hearing if you aren't going to take everything into consideration.
And secondly, it is legitimate for, especially, small farmers not to put a great deal of cost on them. Now, I have said to you and to other people on this program that if we do have animal ID, it ought to be paid for from the farm to the slaughter house because it's an extension of safe and quality meat for our consumers.
And if animal ID is considered important to consumer protection, then it ought to be paid for the same way that meat inspection is paid for. And now some people have interpreted that that I'm for mandatory ID. I don't take a position on it until I get all the information, but I do think that if you're going to have mandatory ID, it ought to be considered as an extension of protection for the consumers which started before 1920 when federal meat inspection went into effect and hence has been paid for by the taxpayers ever since.
STAFF: Dan Skelton in Spencer?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
None of those listening sessions have been scheduled in Iowa or the Upper Midwest. Have you inquired into that? And do you see -- have you lobbied to have any of those listening sessions in this area?
GRASSLEY: I haven't inquired into it because there was a senator from the Midwest that made such a request of the secretary of agriculture, and it was brought up at our last interview within the last couple weeks. So I didn't think there was any sense of piling on about the need to have one in the Midwest.
GRASSLEY: But I do think it would be very helpful to have one in the Midwest.
STAFF: Chris Clayton, DTN?
QUESTION: To kind of follow on that line on the animal ID, Senator, if the -- there was some talk when I was in Washington last week that, you know, one of the main reasons they were having these listening sessions is to the secretary can justify the budget for animal identification. If it becomes a justification just to keep the budget and to keep the funding going for it, is that really, you know, justification to continue that program as it is?
GRASSLEY: Well, I'm sure regardless of what their motivation is for having it, it seems to me that everything that comes out at a public hearing has to be taken into consideration. So I would ignore what their justification is, and I would say that they have an intellectually -- they have a -- they have to be intellectually honest in approaching the hearing and consider everything that's brought up in the hearing.
STAFF: Stacia Cudd, National Farm Broadcasters?
Gary Digiueseppe, Arkansas Radio Network?
QUESTION: I don't have anything today. Thank you.
STAFF: Philip Brasher, Des Moines Register?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator, again, following up on that. What do you sense are the prospects for a mandatory ID system getting through Congress or being approved by Congress? And, two, I'm interested in your observations on the changes for climate legislation passing in this Congress -- this year in this Congress.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Well, I think, in regard to the latter, as far as the Senate is concerned, it's slowed up somewhat as health care, too, would be slowed up for this same reason. And that same reason is the nominee for Supreme Court. It's going to take a lot of time in the Senate.
And so that's -- that's one factor. Health care reform is another factor. But the fact that it moved out of committee but on a fairly close vote, 33 to 25 I recall, means that it's not going to have easy sledding and, particularly, the compromise of 85 percent of the cap-and-trade being given freely is going to make it controversial among environmentalists that are going to want that -- none of those to be given away that I think it kind of is a mixed bag right now.
The first question I have forgotten. On animal ID?
QUESTION: Yes. Mandatory -- Congress go along with the mandatory...
GRASSLEY: Yes. I think it'll be highly controversial both from the standpoint of who's going to pay for it. If the taxpayers are going to pay for it, it's going to be less expensive -- or I mean, not less expensive, less controversial -- and the extent to which it's seen by a lot of people as an intrusion on private property that the regulation of site, particularly, if it gives some privilege to enter that site without permission of the -- of the landowner.
Is that everybody?
STAFF: No.
Gene Simmett (ph), Agrinews?
OK. That's everybody.
GRASSLEY: Did anybody have a follow-up? OK. Thank you all very much.
END