GRASSLEY: Yesterday, we had the Department of Agriculture releasing some new information that an increased number of Americans struggle to actually put food on the table and have plenty to eat. The economic conditions across the country have led to dire circumstances for many.
With these numbers, it's even more important that we pay close attention to children's health needs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a number of programs to help ensure children, that they have a balanced and healthy diets.
Today, the Agriculture Committee of the Senate will be looking at the effectiveness of these programs. It's important that we work to ensure our kids' nutritional needs are met, and particularly in tough economic times.
On another issue, I also look forward to a meeting with several Iowans who are in town this week to discuss biofuels policy.
The Environmental Protection Agency has some deadlines looming. In the next two weeks, the EPA is expected to make a decision on the request for higher blends of ethanol. Currently, ethanol blends are limited to 10 percent in non-flex fuel vehicles. The waiver requests that the EPA allow ethanol to be blended at levels up to 15 percent.
Before I open up for questions, I'd congratulate Ken Root on being named broadcaster of the year by the National Association of Farm Broadcasters. The award's well deserve.
Dan Looker?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator. My congratulations to Ken as well.
I had two questions, if I may, on China.
One, the Chinese government has said that they intend to open China to exports of pork, to reopen China.
QUESTION: Not much has been announced during the president's visit. I wondered if you have heard anything new on that.
My other question is, there are reports that the Chinese leader and President Obama have announced some sort of agreement to work together on climate change, and I wondered if that allays some of your fears about climate legislation in this country putting us at a competitive disadvantage with China.
GRASSLEY: Well, I'll have comments on both, but I don't have any new information on either one.
But I can say that China should be expected to take our pork because the OIE in Paris has made it very clear that -- that our pork and so-called swine flu has nothing to do with human health or human danger. And so it shouldn't have been restricted in the first place, but it was. And so it's good news that they're taking our pork back, particularly since every pork farmer's losing money.
On the second issue, I'm glad that there's talk with China about China being included in it, but I think that that would take place in Copenhagen, and there seems to be no feeling that anything solid's going to come out of Copenhagen, but -- except a political statement that everybody expects to move forward to getting something that would be a worldwide agreement in bringing CO2 down to appropriate levels.
But I would not be satisfied until China's on the same level that the United States is. China's putting more CO2 into the air, and I wouldn't be satisfied if China's not treated like the United States because what good does it do for the United States to clean up CO2? It's not going to make an impact unless China and India's involved as well.
So -- I'll just leave it there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Let's go on to Tom Rider.
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, continuing on the climate change thing, with that Copenhagen meeting scheduled for next week there's talk that the president might offer some type of a limited short-term pact on climate change. Also, the president wants some type of balanced (ph) Doha agreement on climate change as well.
Is there any fear that you have that he might give away the farm, so to speak, on those issues?
GRASSLEY: Sure. I think you see that in the legislation in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, giving away the shop, because they want us to pass a law and have it applicable to us, if it's not applicable to the rest of the nation.
Their argument is maybe well intended, that, we pass a bill, the rest of the world will follow along, but if the rest of the world doesn't follow along then we're going to ruin our economy. So the best thing to do is to make sure that it's tied down there.
And so I do have some concern that the United States feels such a moral obligation to go ahead even if the rest of the world doesn't follow, that by so doing there's no consideration on the part of our EPA, our senators that support it, or the president, that you could be hurting your economy in the process. And maybe they don't care.
But, you know, the argument goes that we're going to create a bunch of green jobs, but any studies I've seen don't indicate that there's a net growth of jobs. Even with new jobs in green energy, jobs lost elsewhere in the economy is going to be very negative to our economy.
Gene, Iowa Farmer?
QUESTION: No questions this morning.
GRASSLEY: Tom Steever?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
A report yesterday indicated a jump in U.S. food insecurity. Would you react to that? And also, would you anticipate any direct legislative action -- reaction to that report?
GRASSLEY: Well, is the report the same one that I cited in my opening comments? Well, the extent to which it is, I don't have much to add to it except we're a very rich country. It's kind of sad when a large share of our population, particularly children, don't have adequate food.
The hearing on the nutrition program today is all about that issue and efforts to enhance our commodity programs and food programs, particularly in school, for the benefit of it.
And this would all be along the lines of our reauthorization of the child nutrition and Women, Infants and Children's program, which would come up early next year.
Ken Root?
QUESTION: Senator, good morning. And thank you very much for those very kind comments. They mean a lot coming from you, sir.
GRASSLEY: I'm glad to do it. And I'm proud that you're an Iowan, again.
QUESTION: Thank you.
I want to ask you about this same issue, on the USDA bringing up that we have children who don't have enough food. Is it moving toward the "Department of Food" rather than Department of Agriculture under this administration in a manner that those people who produce and process that USDA has normally regulated and encouraged now may not be the priority of the department and they move the other direction?
GRASSLEY: Well, if they do, it would be bad for American agriculture and for the consumer. And I don't know whether implied in your question is that maybe on the regulation that there'd be less of it and more danger for our consumer.
But I think that the reality is that for decades, going back with the food stamp programs starting in the 1960s and growing along the way, that -- that the Agriculture Department's been very much a nutrition program because -- a nutrition department because remember that out of the farm bill 70, maybe 70-plus percent of it is related to food, including food stamps, other food programs. And so vast part of its budget is of that.
And -- and you also got to remember, though, that producers and processors are going to benefit from expanded child nutrition programs as well, and there's economic support for farming industries through the purchase of food.
So, you know, budget-wise, it looks like it's nothing but nutrition, but when you combine the elements of regulation to protect the consumer, make sure that people have enough means to have good nutrition, and then what they do for the producer of America, the family farmer with a safety net, you know, it's a pretty all-encompassing one.
But, if you look at it just from a budget point of view, you'd come to the conclusion that they were only for the purpose of putting food in people's mouths and nothing else. But I think you have to look deeper, and when you look deeper you find that they're pretty much an all-encompassing department.
And -- and if there is any increased emphasis in this administration or under Secretary Vilsack's leadership, I think it's more once a case of refinement as opposed to a case of dramatic change of direction.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Dan Skelton?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
In your early comments in this conference you talked about the EPA and its pending decision regarding the waiver for ethanol added to the nation's fuel supply. There was some talk last week that the EPA may not make that decision or may not release that decision in early December. Have you heard that? And if that's true, can you do something to keep their feet to the fire?
GRASSLEY: We've heard the same rumors you've heard. We don't have any other basis than rumor. We have people in the department that say they would like to make a decision. They feel that they have -- have to have an intellectual basis for that decision.
It would not -- they -- I would consider it negative if they don't make a decision, but they might not consider it negative because they say they may have to study for a longer period of time.
But it still has a very, very negative impact on a biofuels industry, particularly upon biodiesel, because biodiesel is entitled to a carve-out that they won't give an interim rule for the benefit of just biodiesel.
And so we're in a position then of, I suppose, the words "getting on them again" through speeches, through letters, through press releases. But also I would go back with a more specific request that if you can't make a decision on E15, at least make a decision on E11 or E12.
OK, let's see, that's Dan.
Chris Clayton?
QUESTION: Senator, going back to the climate debate, isn't it kind of a chasing the tail in the situation that you say that nothing will come out of Copenhagen except some statements, and then the very people who are working in the U.N. on Copenhagen say the reason that nothing is going to come out of it is because of the failure of U.S. Congress to pass legislation?
It seems to be a merry-go-round.
GRASSLEY: You mean it's not the failure of the People's Assembly in China or the Parliament of India to pass laws cutting down on CO2, it's only America's fault, blame America first?
I don't -- I don't...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... waiting on the leadership of the United States.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Well, you know, accept our leadership on CO2, but ignore our leadership on Iran, our leadership on North Korea, ignore our leadership on Afghanistan?
You know, you can't have it both ways. Other countries can't have it both ways.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you, on a separate question, I did a couple articles last week on the forestry industry taking advantage of some tax credits such as the black liquor. I was wondering, why did the Finance Committee not move to shut down the alternative fuel tax earlier this year.
GRASSLEY: Well, we were going to do that in April on a tax bill that never -- never evolved. And if we were going to do it, it probably would have been held up in the Senate by holds, so we wouldn't be able to move it forward. It does sunset on December 31st, and we're just going to let it sunset.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Let's see, that was Chris.
Gary, Arkansas?
QUESTION: Yes, thanks, Senator. Going back to the nutrition issue, the administration wants to increase child nutrition spending by a billion dollars a year and has proposed to expand eligibility. Do you see that as good? Would you support those efforts?
GRASSLEY: I think it's too early for me to say what I would support, but you want to remember that I have supported in the farm bill of last year the conference committee report, and I was a (inaudible) committee some improvement in nutrition programs. So I'm not oblivious of the need, and I don't have an ideological opposition to doing it, but I think I have to see what the specific expansions are.
But I think also it'd be wrong for me, and I don't -- and I'm not saying this, that it's going to influence my (sic) on this bill, but you got to remember that even this Democrat administration that's been increasing expenditures domestically by 12 percent over recent -- well, for the year we just completed, as well as the year we're in, and now their own budget director is concerned about the deficit and he's acting -- he's asking agencies to submit budgets that are freezes.
And so this whole concern about the budget deficit and the legacy of debt we're leaving to our grandchildren may have some influence on this nutrition bill at the level of expenditure, and it may have something to do with how I would vote, but it's not necessarily an overriding issue, because you can spend more money on a child nutrition program and save money someplace else -- and don't ask me where -- but, you know, you can, and still have a freeze.
And you got to remember that in the past my payment limitations issues that I brought up during the farm bill, these limit proposals would have provided money for child nutrition.
So let's say Chuck Grassley took a view in agreement with this administration we ought to freeze, and that would be easy for me to do because I led such an effort in 1985 in the United States Senate and we were successful getting it through the Senate. It didn't survive the House, though, but we did get an across-the-board freeze that I could increase child nutrition program and with my payment limitations of $250,000 have that money go for nutrition to offset it.
Let's see, that was Gary.
Philip Brasher?
OK, Jean Simmet?
OK, I've gone through the list. Anybody have a follow-up?
QUESTION: Senator, this is Ken Root.
GRASSLEY: Yes?
QUESTION: I wonder if you could ask that group coming in from the ethanol industry this week if they really think they're going to be able to make cellulosic ethanol in a manner that's competitive rather than just going for the tax credit and for the grants. Because even at Emmetsburg they still say they're designing.
And my question is, if they really have the potential to turn cellulose into ethanol in anything close to a cost competitive nature to corn.
GRASSLEY: Well, I think the -- the answer to that outright, right now I don't need to ask them, it can't be competitive, but neither was ethanol competitive 30 years ago when it first started out.
Remember that we were using at least four gallons of water to create a gallon of ethanol. We were getting 2.3 million gallons -- no, 2.3 gallons of ethanol out of a bushel of corn today compared to just a little bit over 2.8, at least at the last ethanol plant I visited, and there's a lot of increased -- increased economy -- efficiency, I should say -- in the production of it. Any I think we have to look for the same view as when we're going into cellulosic ethanol -- corn cobs or corn stalks or switchgrass or anything else.
And then you also got to remember that simultaneous with the production of cellulosic ethanol and the expansion of ethanol in that direction, we got all of this new research that's going on with algae (ph), and that may influence this to some extent.
But I'm not up enough on the extent of either one to be more specific than what I've just said.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
GRASSLEY: OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, Tom Rider at WNAX again.
Question. I understand the Senate Ag Committee is going to meet later this week to look at financial market regulatory reform, that type of thing. And just curious what you think might come out of that.
GRASSLEY: Well, a little bit of that might be connected with cap-and-trade issues to some extent. Some of it was speculation of petroleum, and anything to do about that, although I think CFTC's moving in that direction.
I've got conflict between that committee and the Judiciary Committee on another very important hearing. And so I'm going to try to get to both, but I'm going to start out in the Judiciary Committee. So I can't tell you right now beyond just the fact that we're trying to get CFTC to be more of a referee, to be more of a regulator to cut down on speculation.
OK, anybody else? OK, thank you all very much.