GRASSLEY: This week, I'm sending a letter to Obama encouraging officials in his administration, raising issues of China's continued barrier to experts of our U.S. pork and beef. And these officials are going to be meeting with the delegation of Chinese next week. These scientifically unfounded barriers negatively impact producers.
China currently bans imports of our pork due to alleged concerns about H1N1, that, according to the World Organization of Animal Health also the World Health Organization and I think even the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United States -- or I mean, of the United Nations -- the H1N1 virus is not transmitted through food. These organizations further state that there's no scientific justification for trade restrictions on pork and pork products on account of this virus.
China also prohibits imports of U.S. beef due to alleged concerns over BSE yet the OIE recognizes U.S. boneless and bone-in beef derived from cattle of all ages that it can be traded safely. The United States and China benefit by operating under rules-based trading system. And that, in turn, relies upon the determination of internationally recognized science.
Such organizations have examined the scientific evidence and concluded the safety of our meat.
As a member of the World Trade Organization, China committed itself to adhering to scientific standards and, of course, what I'm saying in this letter is it's time for China to play by the rules and reopen its markets.
Dan, Successful Farming?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
I just have one quick question. I wondered if you or your son have signed up your own farm in the acre program or if you've made a decision on the acre program.
GRASSLEY: We talked about it Saturday, and we don't know what to do. And we're still looking at it. And I gave him some advice of who we should be talking to to make a conclusion. So we just don't know yet.
And, you know, very few farmers have signed up, and that's one of the things that are kind of causing us to drag our heels. We've got until August the 14th.
QUESTION: Right. And you said you gave him some advice about who to talk to?
GRASSLEY: Yes. And he doesn't need advice. But, you know, I say we ought to talk to so and so and so and so and so and so. And we ought to read such and such and such and such. And we ought to look at the Farm Bureau Web page, and we need to look at the state extension service and all that stuff.
You know, it's the same place you'd tell farmers to go.
QUESTION: Sure. Sure. There's a lot of information out there.
OK. Well, thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: Tom Rider?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, your colleague, Senator Johanns, wants a cost-benefit analysis done of the cap-and-trade legislation. Do you pretty much agree with him on that?
GRASSLEY: Yes. Going back to Dan, I think you said -- between Pat and me. But my son is Robin and my grandson is Patrick. So I talked to Robin about it.
Tom Steever?
QUESTION: No questions.
GRASSLEY: OK. Dan Skelton?
Chris Clayton?
QUESTION: Senator, what are you going to look at or key in on tomorrow at the hearing on climate legislation in the Senate Ag Committee?
GRASSLEY: Oh, I'm going to try to make the points about agriculture being so -- so energy intensive. The negative impact on agriculture, in other words, the indirect cost to farmers. And I'm going to be concentrating on making sure farmers get credit for the decades of minimum tillage and no tillage we've been using.
QUESTION: Do you think it's possible that climate legislation could be a net benefit for farmers?
GRASSLEY: No. And I know that there's people from Iowa who've said otherwise. But I tend to disagree with them.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Stacia, National Farm Broadcasters?
Gary, Arkansas?
QUESTION: I don't have anything. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Philip Brasher?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator. A couple of questions.
What is it going to take to change the House bill to get it through the Senate in terms of cap-and-trade? And I also had a follow-up question about fruit safety legislation. But if you can go ahead and...
GRASSLEY: Well, it seem to me one of the things is to satisfy Senator Harkin, who has said that he's going to go beyond what Peterson accomplished in the House to satisfy farmers as one thing.
But I guess maybe your question, Philip, obviously, goes beyond agriculture. So let me give you more of a broader answer than just agriculture. And that is that I think that there's a lot of concern about the outsourcing of manufacturing to China if they're not committed to reducing CO2 as much as we are. And India might fall into that category.
And then, also, don't forget go it alone, the United States would not make a dent -- and I've said that before -- but Lisa Jackson, a couple of days ago, a couple of weeks ago, said it to the House committee, I believe, that it wouldn't -- it wouldn't make a dent in CO2.
And to have somebody from EPA and from this administration say that, that's pretty strong.
QUESTION: Well, the administration wants -- would like to get this through the Senate before Copenhagen. Is that -- is that going to happen? Is that a reason to get it through the Senate? Will that get 60 votes?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think -- I think you get back to the -- the moral authority of the United States being strengthened at Copenhagen. I'm not so sure that the moral authority of the United States is what's at issue here. What's at issue is jobs. And if we're going to lose manufacturing jobs, it puts emphasis upon our negotiators to make sure we get a level playing field for American manufacturing so we don't outsource all those jobs. And that's irrespective of what we pass.
Because let's suppose we pass something, and we've established our moral authority and Copenhagen does nothing about China or India. Then we're back where Lisa Jackson said we were that the United States doing this by ourselves would not make a dent in the CO2.
OK. Anybody else? OK. Thank you all very much.