Transcription of Senator Grassley's Agriculture News Conference


     GRASSLEY:  Late yesterday, I received word that officials from

EPA, that they accepted my invitation to travel to Iowa.  Both Regina

McCarthy and Margo Oge will be coming to Iowa on September 3rd.  I

appreciate the administration's willingness to visit and see firsthand

the impact their agency has on farmers and agriculture.  The previous

administrator has been to an Iowa farm, and we had a very good

discussion about agriculture.  I expect the same will happen with

Assistant Administrator McCarthy and Director Oge.

 

     We'll be putting together the agenda in upcoming days, and we'll

get it released as soon as possible.  But, generally, we will be in

the Des Moines area visiting the family farm, bio-refinery, and

probably a few other places.

 

     Dan Looker?

 

     QUESTION:  Good morning, Senator.

 

     I'm sorry I missed your call last week.  I was at a fuel ethanol

workshop in Denver, and I just wondered if, in light of EPA's decision

to accept your invitation to Iowa and the fact that they will be

visiting an ethanol plant, are you feeling any better about the

prospects for a couple of things that they control?

 

     One would be the decision on how to evaluate indirect land use

and the renewable fuel standard.  And then I guess maybe is it the

Department of Energy that would bump up the blend rate to...

 

     GRASSLEY:  No.  That would be EPA as well.

 

     QUESTION:  That's also EPA?

 

     GRASSLEY:  Yes.

 

     QUESTION:  OK.  Do you think prospects are any better for

revising the indirect land use calculation and bumping up the blend

rate above 10 percent?

 

     GRASSLEY:  Well, you know, those -- some of those things may be

decided even before we get there.  But the idea is, generally, because

there's four or five very major things that effect agriculture which

you named you one or two.  And then you've got the -- well, you

included the indirect land use.  You've got the fugitive dust thing.

You've got the methane from manure and the cattle tax.  And then

you've got the issue with point-source pollution from the nozzles of

sprayers, et cetera, like that.

 

     That's what we're trying to get just an understanding of.  Now,

you understand that some of these people have never been on a farm,

and so the idea is to acquaint them for the first time with American

agriculture.  Because they're making so many decisions affecting

agriculture, they ought to see firsthand how a family farm operates.

 

     QUESTION:  OK.  Do you think the cattle tax -- you know, I've

heard that that really -- that isn't something they really have...

 

     GRASSLEY:  No, I guess -- I guess I've had some satisfaction

along that line, too, plus the fact that the House -- it looks to me

like the House Environment Committee is trying to put a stop to that

or maybe clarify that that isn't something EPA could do anyway.

 

     But, you know, it's out there, and it scares the farmers.  And we

have to respond to it.  And if there would be any substance to it,

we'd want to get it stopped.  And so all of this stuff works in that

direction.

 

     QUESTION:  OK.  Well, thank you very much.

 

     GRASSLEY:   Tom Rider?

 

     QUESTION:  Good morning, Senator.

 

     Senator, I know there's a lot of concern out there on climate

change legislation and what it might cost an average consumer.  There

were some figures out yesterday that climate change could cost the

average household $175 a year starting in 2020.  But that kind of

conflicts with other figures that were much higher.

 

     Your concerns at this time and what you're seeing happening with

that?

 

     GRASSLEY:  Well, as far as when you turn your light switch on, it

might -- it might be a lot less than the $3,000 I've used for an

individual family through their light bill.  But don't forget, it's

equivalent to a tax on energy, and it works its way through the

economy anyplace where there's manufacturing or the use of energy.

 

     And so the $3,000 figure is a pretty good figure what it would

cost a family of four.

 

     OK.  Gene, Iowa Farmer?

 

     QUESTION:  Hi.  Yes, Senator.

 

     Secretary Chu was quoted as saying that he wants to see all

vehicles be E-85 but not looking to require that.  Any thoughts on

that issue?

 

     GRASSLEY:  Well, I have thoughts along the lines of incentives

that could come through government to put them in.  But the most

important thing is I think we ought to concentrate on making ethanol

more outlets for ethanol or I should say for E-85 ethanol.  Because I

think when you get the outlets, you're going to have the cars

manufactured to a greater extent and, to some extent, you're going to

make greater use of cars that already have the capability that are not

burning it.

 

 

     GRASSLEY:  And then what we're trying to do is -- there's a place

in the -- in the stimulus bill where we're trying to work with the

administration on getting money out for flex-fuel vehicles.

 

     Julie, Brownfield?

 

     QUESTION:  No questions.

 

     GRASSLEY:  Ken Root?

 

     QUESTION:  Senator, I wonder if you could talk about this climate

change bill -- the Waxman-Markey bill.  It looks like, in the House,

it's heading for a vote, perhaps, this week.

 

     I wonder if you could take under the perspective of agriculture

and whether or not this is too much, too soon.

 

     GRASSLEY:  It is too much, too soon from the standpoint of

agriculture because it doesn't give agriculture enough credit for what

already has done in production agriculture to cut down on energy use

and, hence, CO2 going into the air.

 

     You know, they're going to give just a little bit of credit for

recent advancements in no till and minimum till.  And we've been doing

that for 20 years, maybe longer for some farmers.  And more

importantly, how we have enhanced productivity per acre using less

energy and yet productivity has gone up.

 

     Just think of the increase in the last 20 years of the corn grown

per acre, soybeans per acre, what's been accomplished through GMOs and

those sort of things that have made agriculture more productive and,

at the same time, using less energy per bushel produced.  And we're

just not getting credit for it.

 

     Now, Congressman Peterson, is trying to bring that -- some of

that to the table.  And I would assume that they wouldn't go ahead

with a vote this week if there's not some accommodation along

Congressman Peterson's line of thinking, which is similar to mine.

 

     And from that standpoint, as of yesterday, I have been told that

there's not any such agreement.

 

     QUESTION:  Could I ask you just a little bit more on that?

 

     GRASSLEY:  Yes.

     QUESTION:  And that is worldwide, what if we were to go back to

another Kyoto type of meeting and have everybody come into this before

we start unilaterally legislating?

 

     GRASSLEY:  Oh, well, you're speaking to everything that's in my

heart on that issue.  And maybe I've expressed this to some of you

before, but -- and maybe I'd say this more in regard to manufacturing

than agriculture.  But everything you said still applies.

 

     And that is that the United States is moving ahead with this

legislation under the presumption that the United States, being a

great economy and a great country of leadership position in the world,

that we ought to be taking steps forward to set the tone for what

might be going on at an international treaty agreement negotiations in

Copenhagen in December.

 

     Now, that's been my position because when you do that, you

include China and India, which pollute more CO2 than the United

States.  So if the United States would go off on its own for moral

leadership and the rest of the world didn't come through with the

agreement, we would be stuck with our law and then, pretty soon, on

every door or manufacturing, you'd see a sign "Closed; moved to China"

because you could move to China and not have to worry about all the

costs that cap-and-trade would put on you if you continued your

manufacturing in the United States.

 

     So you would not have a level playing field for American

manufacturing.  You would outsource for jobs to China.  And quite

ironically, a lot of the people that are pushing cap-and-trade

legislation are the very same ones that's been complaining over the

last 10 years about our outsourcing so many jobs to China.  So, in a

sense, they're talking in conflict with themselves.

 

     QUESTION:  Thank you.

 

     GRASSLEY:  Chris -- oh, I skipped Julie at Brownfield.

 

     OK.  Chris Clayton?

 

     QUESTION:  I don't have any other questions, Senator.

 

     GRASSLEY:  Stacia Cudd?

 

     OK.  Gary Digiuseppe?

 

     QUESTION:  Senator, what do you think of the Clean Water

Restoration Act that Environment and Public Works passed last weeks?

 

     GRASSLEY:  I can't answer your question.  Well, wait a minute,

let me back up.  I'll bet I know which one -- does it deal with the

EPA?  I mean, with the Corps of Engineers and navigable waters?

 

     QUESTION:  This is bill that would store permitting on all waters

of the United States, not just those deemed navigable.

 

     GRASSLEY:  Yes.  I would -- and it overturns court decisions.  I

would vote against it.  I don't want Corps of Engineers having the

power to regulate every place where a drop of rain falls.

 

     QUESTION:  There was an amendment to it that I guess was crafted

by our colleague there on Finance, Senator Baucus, that says there

won't be any additional permitting beyond what there already would

have been before the court decision.  Does that influence your

decision at all?

 

     GRASSLEY:  No, not at all.

 

     QUESTION:  Why not?

 

     GRASSLEY:  Well, because of conflict with property rights and the

word "navigable."  Navigable meant where a ship could go.  And we

ought to stick with the original interpretation of -- and definition

of navigable.

 

     QUESTION:  OK.  Thank you.

 

     GRASSLEY:  Philip Brasher?

 

     QUESTION:  Yes, Senator.  There was -- stuck on the climate bill,

Speaker Pelosi's put out an announcement late tonight that they

had reached an agreement, I guess, in principle with Peterson and the

others.  So they were planning for -- to take this to the floor by

Friday.

 

     What are the...

 

     GRASSLEY:  You're talking cap-and-trade?

 

     QUESTION:  Right.  Don't have any details -- any details of what

they agreed to.  But what's -- can you talk about it now, what the --

the prospects?  Is this dead in the Senate?

 

     GRASSLEY:  Oh, I don't...

 

     QUESTION:  Or what's it...

 

     GRASSLEY:  I don't think it...

 

     QUESTION:  How would it have to be changed?

 

     GRASSLEY:  I can't answer the last question, but it's not dead in

the sense it would never be brought up.  It just isn't going to be

brought up immediately because they don't have 60 votes.  And so I

think what happens there is you go through a process of negotiation

maybe to make it reasonable, more reasonable than what the House bill

is.

 

     QUESTION:  What would it take to get the 60 votes to make it more

reasonable?

 

     GRASSLEY:  I don't...

 

     QUESTION:  Or reasonable enough?

 

     GRASSLEY:  I don't know from the standpoint -- I've told you my

position is that we ought to rely on an international agreement

because we need a level playing field with China and India which put

more CO2 in the air than we do.  And we need that level playing field

so we don't outsource more manufacturing jobs to China.

 

     OK.  I've gone through the entire list.  Anybody else want to jump in. Okay. Thank you all very much.