GRASSLEY: This week, I'm introducing legislation, bipartisan,
with Senator Casey of Pennsylvania addressing the problems of smuggled
food and agriculture products into our country. It's a kind of a
repeat of a bill we didn't get passed last year.
All too often, we have new food safety problems. It may be
contaminated food right here at home or it might be tainted food
coming in from abroad. As part of our national security, we require
safe and secure food supply. Importers of food into our country have
a duty to make sure that they -- that the supply is safe.
At the same time, with trillions of dollars worth of products
being imported to our country every year, we obviously need to make
sure that our inspectors can handle the workload.
Our Eat Safe Act, it's called -- I don't go into the long name
that the acronym spells out, but Eat Safe puts an emphasis upon
training and personnel. It authorizes funding for both Food and Drug
Administration and Department of Agriculture both to hire additional
personnel to detect and track smuggled food. The bill would also
cross-train Department of Homeland Security border patrol agents and
agricultural specialists so that they would have a, you know, a role
to play in food safety because they are kind of our first line of
defense on imported threats.
In addition, our bill requires private laboratories conducting
tests on FDA-regulated products on behalf of the importers to apply
and be certified by the FDA. It directs the FDA to develop a
determination, certification, and audit process for private
laboratories and authorizes the FDA to collect user fees that cover
costs.
Finally, it imposes civil penalties to these laboratories as well
as importers who knowingly falsify sampling results. The bill helps
alleviate the threats from imported products and puts reliability into
private lab testing. The FDA does not have the resources, as we've
seen with recent peanut products and the recall of those products, to
fully monitor all the threats.
And an introduction of this bill will get the seeds planted on
what's sure to be a comprehensive look at our nation's food supply.
Dan, Successful Farming?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
I wondered if I could ask about a different subject related to
ethanol.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: A couple of weeks ago, the Iowa Renewable Fuels
Association met here in Des Moines and there was some discussion and
concern about something called the low carbon fuel standard that's
part of the 2000 energy law. And the worry is that when EPA writes
the rules for this, it may cut conventional corn-based ethanol out of
the renewable fuel, basically if they follow the letter of the law,
ethanol plants in the United States are going to have to account for
every acre of rainforest that's cut down to produce biofuels or food
as a result of more acres in the U.S. going into corn ethanol
production.
And a lot of people say this is a pretty bogus concept, but it's
in the law. And basically, U.S. ethanol plants would have to be
accountable for what happens in Brazil or Indonesia or anyplace else
tropical forests are being cleared.
And my question is: Do you have Congress will change that
portion of the energy bill if it turns out that it's taking corn
ethanol plants and probably biodiesel plants out of the renewable fuel
standard?
GRASSLEY: I believe we would and I believe we have a president
that would be favorable to that because he's been very -- very
outspoken in support of ethanol and biofuels. He's been outspoken in
alternative energies. And I think you've got to think in terms of
that being in the law. It would have never been in there if we
thought it was going to be distorted to the extent that EPA is
distorting it. Because I don't know why you would penalize Iowa
farmers for something that Brazilians are doing that we have no
control over.
Tom Rider?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, 19 senators have written Secretary Vilsack asking the
department to implement rules and regs pertaining to the new, adjusted
gross income and payment limit reforms in the Farm Bill to accurately
reflect congressional intent. I'm curious what you thought about what
they're asking for? If you agreed with it? Disagreed with it?
What's happening here?
GRASSLEY: I think it's a shot in the dark trying to send signals
to a new secretary of agriculture to do something the law does not --
the bill -- the new Farm Bill never intended. I think they're trying
to get him -- intimidate him in a way that I know he's not going to be
intimidated to maybe make sure that the very liberal rules that we
ended up putting in -- because I say "liberal rules" because, you
know, they're a lot less strict that I would have had if the Dorgan-
Grassley amendment had been adopted.
They're probably trying to get him to loosen those up a little
bit as the language of the bill might allow. And I don't think he's
going to do it. Another thing they might be trying to do is make sure
that he doesn't do anything to actively engage in farming.
And I would expect that the new secretary is going to enforce the
law and follow the intent of Congress as much as he can. And I don't
think that's going to be so difficult with the present restrictions of
a half a million dollars income for nonfarmers and $750,000 a year for
farmers.
But I do think that he's going to try to do something that make
sure that actively engaged farming is better enforce the than it has
been in the past. Now, he may not do it exactly the way that I would
suggest he would do, but I'll bet it's going to be better than it's
been done by the last three administrations that would -- well, four
administrations -- the last of Reagan, the first Bush, Clinton, and
this Bush.
And it needs to be enforced.
QUESTION: Do you agree with what they're asking for, sir?
GRASSLEY: No.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: Gene, Iowa Farmer?
QUESTION: No questions this morning.
GRASSLEY: Tom Steever?
QUESTION: Mine has been taken care of. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Let's see. Ken Root?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
QUESTION: I wonder if you think the Obama administration is
focusing or is planning any kind of social activism to be represented
within USDA, part of which may be that limitation on payments and
further. Or do you see that they're just focused on fiscal
responsibility right now?
GRASSLEY: No, I think you're going to see a lot of social
activism. And maybe activism that wouldn't be just social, and some
of it, I would welcome and some I might not welcome. You know, I
think you're going to find the Department of Agriculture playing a
stronger role in global warming. And I'm not so sure about the way
that farming, through our crops and through our minimum tillage doing
all we can to help stop global warming, that I would expect our
Department of Agriculture to be a little more defensive of farming and
defending farmers to a greater extent in that area.
But except for that area, in the area of program limitations, in
the area of maybe making sure that there's less hunger in the world or
in the United States and improving nutrition and things of that
nature, if you want to call that social activism, I would welcome
that.
And another area that I've been working on that I would welcome
greater activism is helping minority farmers, meaning, mostly African-
American farmers that I think have been ill treated by previous
administrations, at least, the Clinton and the Bush administrations.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
GRASSLEY: Dan Skelton?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack in an
interview last week said he felt the duties shared by USDA and the
Food and Drug Administration should be combined into a single agency.
There were similar comments coming out of the House Ag Committee last
week.
Do you see a movement to that in the Senate? And would you
support a single -- a new agency?
GRASSLEY: Well, not a new agency. If it's consolidated within
the Department of Agriculture, I would support it. But if it -- the
reason for consolidation is one thing. Where it ought to be is quite
another thing. And the reason for consolidation is so that we've got
one set of standards for all foods and that it's part of a process of
building confidence of consumers in our food supply. And that's all
necessary for prosperity of the farmer.
The -- I just think it's ideal to have it in the Department of
Agriculture, but if you wanted it accomplish those goals and the only
way of getting it done would be outside, then I suppose put it
outside. But it's so closely related to the production of food that I
think it ought to be in the Department of Agriculture.
Stacia?
Gary, Arkansas?
OK. Is there anybody else? I think there may be on the people
come on, but I don't have you circled here. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, this is Dan.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: And Valero Energy, which is a U.S. oil refinery -- I'm
not familiar with them -- has indicated that they want to buy five
(inaudible) ethanol plants. Do you have any comment on that?
GRASSLEY: Well, obviously, I would rather not have that sort of
mixture between oil and ethanol. But ethanol is so important. And if
the viability of the ethanol industry is hurt now because the company
made a bad investment in corn last summer, and it takes this to keep
the ethanol industry alive, I guess I am going opt for keeping the
ethanol industry strong.
QUESTION: Senator, Ken Root here. Can I quote you as saying
that oil and ethanol don't mix?
GRASSLEY: Oil and ethanol don't mix, but let me assure you
gasoline and ethanol mix well.
QUESTION: Are you concerned that the oil industry ownership of a
portion, a major ethanol producer would change the dynamics of the
industry?
GRASSLEY: Not as long as there's federal mandates. Beyond
federal mandates, yes, it could change it.
QUESTION: Well, all of a sudden, ethanol might actually be a
good idea if the oil industry owned it.
GRASSLEY: You know, a long time before maybe I knew you, Ken, I
made statements like this when we were fighting big oil on ethanol. I
said, if you want to -- if you are complaining about the competition,
by don't you come and buy some farm land and get involved in the
production of ethanol if you don't want to deal with things you don't
control.
So from that standpoint, I suppose I'd have to say you're right.
But I still would normally question mergers that I consider anti-
competitive.
QUESTION: Yes, sir. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Anybody else? Thank you all very much.