GRASSLEY: We have a person who knows Iowa well coming before the Agriculture Committee today: undersecretary of food, nutrition and consumer services. It's Vilsack's appointment of Kevin Concannon, who we knew well when he worked as director of the Department of Human Services in the Vilsack administration in Iowa.
Mr. Concannon has come to us from Maine to Iowa, but he knows Iowa well.
Now, in his role as undersecretary, he -- he oversees the school lunch, school breakfast and summer feeding programs. In the state, he oversaw programs that we call the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is another name for the food stamp program, and the WIC program, which is for women, infant, children, as well as the emergency food and commodity distribution program.
So he's well-tuned into these programs that he would be administering at the national level.
I also had the opportunity to work with Mr. Concannon through my role as ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I appreciated his willingness to work with me and my staff and to listen to our concerns from the federal level when he was back in Iowa as a state administrator.
GRASSLEY: I look forward to hearing from him today, and expect he will be confirmed, barring any unforeseen circumstances.
Dan, "Successful Farming"?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
I just wondered, is the Senate Finance Committee going to hold a hearing on a climate change bill in the Senate? And if so, what are some of the things you would like to find out at that hearing?
And, finally, how are you leaning toward voting if there is a bill in the Senate?
GRASSLEY: Well, if it were a House bill coming over to the Senate, I would be voting against it.
But the actually policy that -- most of the policy, I should say, that's going to be developed for the Senate bill is not yet out of Senator Boxer's committee that she chairs. And I'm not a member of that committee, so I'm not sure exactly what they're doing.
But I can tell you, an overview of mine is that it's going to be very detrimental to the economy of the United States if we pass a bill and the other countries of the world don't follow along -- and I have my doubts if they will follow along.
And that's why I think it ought be done by international agreements so that China has to meet the same deadlines that we do. Otherwise we're going to lose all of our manufacturing -- or manufacturing jobs to China because it'll be cheaper for our manufacturing to go over there than to pay the stiff fees on energy that they'll have to pay here, which is what we call cap-and-trade -- which is another way of saying it is a cap-and-trade tax.
GRASSLEY: And every time a consumer in Iowa turns on their light switch, they're going to be paying a tax that they don't pay today.
And all at the same time that the United States is supposed to show leadership. But if the rest of the world doesn't go along, then we're going to be kind of an Uncle Sucker. So we need an international agreement.
Now, in regard to the hearing, the hearing is instituted as a result of a Government Accountability studies that we have proposed. But I can tell you, one of the things that I want to bring up tomorrow is in the area of -- of the -- what's in the House bill, where they're going to put import duties on products coming in from a country like China if they don't meet the same CO2 requirements that we have.
And it's an oddity that they -- the House would put that in, because, you see, some of the very same people that are promoting global warming legislation, or cap-and-trade, are the very same ones that over a long period of time have complained about outsourcing our manufacturing jobs to China. So passing the cap-and-trade bill will outsource even more jobs.
So in order to cover their rear end, they needed to put this import duties in so that they can have an excuse that they really aren't doing anything that hurts American manufacturing when in fact they are.
Tom Rider?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, I understand that the Obama administration's supposed to announce some steps they're taking on food safety, an advisory committee to look at what should be done to -- to help in that area. And I was just curious what you think they might announce and what you would support at this time.
GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, if they're announcing an advisory committee, it probably means that they're still looking for specific recommendations.
But Congress at least -- Representative DeLauro -- she's from Connecticut and chairman of a very important committee in the House -- has already started to move in this direction on changing the rules on food safety.
GRASSLEY: And that legislation is not -- I don't think it's through the House yet.
There's some aspects of it that enhance confidence -- will enhance confidence of people in our food safety and enhance food safety. But there's some things in it that deal with entrance to farmsteads and the right of federal officials to come onto farms, and the identity of farms that's going to be highly controversial.
So I could not endorse her bill except the extent to which promotion of food safety legislation is central to the consumer confidence that's so necessary for farmers to have a market for their products.
QUESTION: Is there anything specific that you would recommend to them that they should do?
GRASSLEY: I would recommend that they not give farmers specific -- that they not give federal bureaucrats the right to enter farmsteads at will.
Another thing I would recommend -- and I don't know whether this is in the bill of not -- but they ought to -- if they really want to take care of food safety, there ought to be a promotion of irradiation.
GRASSLEY: Tom Steever?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
You expressed confidence in -- in the designate, Concannon. Are there any of those nominations to positions in the Ag Department to which you might have a problem that are going to be heard today?
GRASSLEY: None as far as I know that we're going to have any problems with. And we haven't had any problems with any of the assistant secretaries that have been appointed to this point.
And I think that the -- in fact I go just the opposite direction. I would applaud Secretary Vilsack for the caliber of people he's bringing in.
And not just Mr. Concannon, who's also very qualified to do what he's doing, but also I would suggest that we -- that we compliment him for people he's appointed that are going to make greater enforcement of existing anti-competitive laws that are in the -- in law now, but not adequately enforced under either previous Republican or Democrat presidencies.
I think there's a good balance of ag interests overall, I would say, if you wanted me to lump all the appointments together, and good experience, too, that they've brought to the job.
Ken Root?
QUESTION: Senator, good morning.
I see that Secretary Vilsack has finished up all of his listening sessions on animal ID, and I wonder if you think, based upon the reaction from the countryside and also the reaction from members of the House who say they won't fund it, if animal ID is dead.
GRASSLEY: Well, without money, nothing happens around here. And we remember the COOL legislation as a perfect example of -- of what you're talking about. We passed a bill in 2002 or 2003 to have country-of-origin labeling and Appropriations Committees said no money could be used to carry out COOL, so it was four or five years before we actually get the law carried out that Congress passed in 2002. And so that process of not funding programs can be detrimental to an overall goal.
Now, I can say that in all the town meetings that I've had -- February, the Easter break, and now the most recent one, July the 4th, and I've been in 71 counties so far this year -- that this issue of animal ID has never come up.
Now, in previous years going back maybe two to four years back, it would come up very frequently and there was very much opposition expressed at that time to animal ID, particularly from smaller farmers and particularly from people that maybe the only animals they had was for 4H that it was going to be a process of just about making it impossible to have such animal agriculture.
GRASSLEY: And so we're -- we're -- you know, there's a lot of questions about it.
At all these listening sessions it seems to me that you're only going to hear from those that are opposed to anything. But if you look at Iowa, we already have voluntarily over 50 percent of our premises registered, and that would say something as far as Iowans are concerned.
Now, maybe we have a more progressive animal industry in Iowa than they do in some states, but you still get back to my original answer: If it's not going to be funded, it's not going to fly.
QUESTION: Senator, one last thing.
The State Fair of Iowa this year is requiring that all animals shown -- I'm not sure it's all animals shown, but many animals shown -- have to come from locations that have a premises ID. Do you have a problem with that being mandatory?
GRASSLEY: Well, you don't have to show at the state fair. And I think that people voting by their feet are going to show whether or not that's -- that's acceptable. If it's acceptable to people that show at the state fair, then how am I going to argue with it. They're voting in a more transparent way than I can judge their -- their opinions from Washington, D.C.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Dan Skelton?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Yesterday Russia announced that it had partially lifted its ban on live hogs and uncooked pork imports from some United -- some states in the United States. Are you satisfied with that response so far? And if not, what more needs to be done?
GRASSLEY: Well, it's a positive move. But when you get right down to it, answer to your question about pork in Russia, it's no different than anything else. We need to make sure that there's a scientific basis for keeping things out. And I'd say the same thing for the United States: that we have to use science if we want something not coming in here.
But I can say that it's my understanding that Russia has lifted these restrictions as they apply to concerns over the H1N1. But the H1N1 restrictions remain on imports from at least six of our states yet, and -- that they don't have any restrictions on Iowa pork. And so that would be very much a local concern that I would have.
But you still have to get back to the scientific basis for doing things, except maybe an exception to that would be what they consider the safety of their people. And that can be an immediate concern. But when you get to the end of that slow-up or stoppage of things coming in, it's eventually got to have a scientific basis.
OK, Gary, Arkansas?
QUESTION: Senator, going back to what you were saying about the House climate change bill and the reciprocity tariffs, we seem to be rattling China's cage a lot lately.
QUESTION: They're unhappy by that. They're also prohibiting imports of our poultry over some measures that have been adopted in appropriations bills barring imports of their poultry.
Do we need to slacken off on China or is -- is this due? Is it about time we started giving a hard time over trade issues?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think it's very good for us to be more aggressive on China on trade issues, to the extent to which they're violating WTO agreements.
But whether it's the United States or China, if we're going to have credibility in the international trade issues, we cannot be political, as they might read our restrictions on our appropriations bills. We got to have it based on science and the protection of our consumers.
And the extent to which there's not a scientific basis for keeping Chinese poultry out of our country, we can't do it or we're not going to have any credibility with China when we expect them to take our products that we think are safe and that the organization of scientists in China -- I mean, in Paris say our products are safe.
QUESTION: So you believe that our -- our prohibitions on their poultry imports are unjustified?
GRASSLEY: If they're political decisions, they're unjustified. If they're scientific decisions, they're not unjustified.
QUESTION: So you're saying you don't know whether they're unjustified?
GRASSLEY: I have to say that the only way we can keep products out of our country is if they're -- if they're not judged from the point of view of science of being safe. I suppose there's one other one I can throw in: They can't be subsidized by a foreign government in contradiction to the rules of the WTO.
QUESTION: So you -- would you vote to strip those provisions that bar imports of Chinese poultry from -- from the appropriations bill?
GRASSLEY: I have to be consistent in my approach to foreign trade.
Philip, Des Moines Register? OK, I've gone through the list. Anybody else want to jump in?
QUESTION: Senator, this is Dan Looker again. And I just had a follow-up question to your comments about the climate bill -- or a climate bill.
I gather your criticism of putting the tariff in the House bill that would apply to countries like China if they don't have a similar legislation -- I gather that you see that basically as letting the horse -- or closing the barn door after the horse has left.
GRASSLEY: Sure
QUESTION: You think it's not -- not -- wouldn't be effective or...
GRASSLEY: Well, at this point, you don't know whether it's going to be effective or not. But the point is, it's a violation of our WTO obligations.
You know, and it's all based on this proposition that the House gives free allowances.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: OK, anybody else want to jump in?
QUESTION: Senator, this is Dan in Spencer again.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Your schedule indicates that you will meet this week with members of northwest Iowa, FFA organizations. These are young people who presumably are interested in careers in agriculture. What will you tell them?
GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, I let them set the agenda. I don't really have a speech.
Our meetings are generally for two purposes: one for me to just meet with young people for 15 minutes -- and I do eight of those meetings a day -- and, number one, to answer any questions that they have on mind. About all I tell them in the way of a speech is what's going on in the Senate and what I'm working on, but they usually ask those questions anyway. And then the other one is they always want a picture taken with their senator, and not just me but Senator Harkin as well.
So we -- we tend to meet out sometimes in the open air if it's a good day, and answer questions for them.
But I always encourage them about the future of agriculture is great in Iowa, particularly if they're interested in the agribusiness end of it.
OK. Anybody else?
OK. Thank you all very much.