GRASSLEY: We're celebrating National Agriculture Week. As we
celebrate agriculture this week, we're going to continue to see people
take America's agricultural abundance for granted. Many don't
understand the sophisticated system that gets a kernel of corn into
your cereal bowl or through ethanol into your gas tank.
There are hundreds of thousands of people involved in making the
raw product from our family farms to the dinner tables across the
country. Agribusiness operations, research in agriculture engineering
and agriculture food science, the farms and productive facilities all
together make a significant contribution to the health, nutrition, and
business of people not only in the United States but around the world.
Agriculture has changed a lot since I started farming in 1959.
Traditionally, agriculture has fed the world, but with advances in
agriculture technology, farmers are now fueling the world. We're also
doing things better. We're more efficient. We employ better
conservation practices.
For instance, in the last 50 years, the American farmer has
increased the number of people it feeds per farmer from 25, 50 years
ago to 144 today. American agriculture contributes significantly to
our economy. Its impact runs deep through the rural countryside as
well as densely populated urban areas.
From small farming communities to bustling metropolitan centers,
America's agriculture network contributes greatly to our economic,
social, and cultural way of life.
Tom at Yankton?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, I was just curious if you could tell me how you think
you'll vote on the Gary Gensler nomination as CFTC. Is he a strong
enough candidate for that job?
GRASSLEY: I don't know about the last question, but I'm going
vote for him. And I voted for him out of committee yesterday.
I believe that he is a strong candidate, but, you know, it takes
time to find out. I can say this that I think that there's going to
be more of an attitude towards not letting speculators have the
runaway situation that they had in the last couple years,
particularly, when it comes to petroleum.
Let's see. The next person is -- is there a Ken at Brownfield?
How about Ken Root at WHO?
QUESTION: Yes, I'm here, Senator. Good morning to you.
GRASSLEY: You bet, Ken.
QUESTION: During this agriculture week, President Obama has
written that food safety seems to be a priority for him in who he's
picking for head of FDA and for his criticism of food safety.
I wonder if you can respond to your view on that.
GRASSLEY: Well, from the economics of agriculture as well as
just the pure safety of the American public, we have to have
confidence in our food supply. It's very important for farmers to
have people in positions of overseeing meat inspection to make sure
that they take the job seriously because if people don't have
confidence, you can see what happens to various foods like peanut
butter when there's salmonella, when there's other things as well.
So we've got make sure that we do that. I do think that there
needs to be some change in law. And so that's why I'm co-sponsoring a
bill with Senator Casey on food safety to get more resources. That's
probably oriented more towards the import of food than it is food
domestically grown.
So I guess I would complement the president for making the
appointments he has, but I would go back in the case of the FDA and
make some statements that's more comprehensive than just food safety.
You have a person taking over a department where I think there's a
culture of insularity, a culture that to wants to make sure that their
public relations are all right, that they make decisions that aren't
overridden once products get onto the market.
And I won't go into a lot of things about the pharmaceutical
industry, but there needs to be a lot of changes in the basic culture
of FDA. And that may be as true of food as it's pharmaceuticals, but
I can't speak as authoritatively about food as I can about the
research that I've done on their lack of safety considerations for
pharmaceuticals.
Chris, DTN?
QUESTION: Senator, you were one of several senators that wrote a
letter to the EPA this week on the indirect land use issue. I think
you guys were asking the EPA to simply not apply that rule.
Do you think any idea when the EPA will -- is expected to come
down with a rule on that? Have they given you an indication? I was
wondering, does anybody know how that specifically got into the 2007
law?
GRASSLEY: I was asked that question last week. I didn't have an
answer last week, and I don't think there is an answer that you can
point to one member of Congress or one staffer that puts that in
there.
But I'll see if we can get a more -- a more certain answer and
get back to you if we have an answer. But I don't think we are going
to be able to have an answer.
GRASSLEY: If it's -- if it was an honest effort to include
something that ought to be considered -- but, you know, I'm always
pessimistic and cynical about these things. Sometimes you think maybe
there's a cynical reason for putting it in there that people that
wasn't like ethanol would find one other way of hurting it. That
could be environmentalists or that could be the oil industry. I just
don't know.
I'd like to find out that the oil industry is pushing this. It
would be easier for us to combat it, but I don't know whether we'll be
able to show that.
But the most important thing to remember, something always ought
to be behind everything EPA does, and that's the sound science of it.
And there's no sound science behind this.
Let's see, Stacia?
Matt at the Waterloo Courier?
QUESTION: Yes. Hi, Senator.
Construction of the Norman Borlaug Learning Center near the
northeast side -- on the Northeast Iowa Research Farm is progressing.
And I was just wondering what your take on having that center -- that
research center named after Norman Borlaug and what he has meant to
agriculture.
GRASSLEY: And that's his birthplace home?
QUESTION: No, no. His birthplace was in Cresco. This is a
learn center that the extension has built at the research farm -- the
extension research farm near Nashua, actually.
GRASSLEY: Oh. Well, I guess -- and the reason I asked about his
birthplace is because I think that we were asked by people in that
area to in requests for federal money for maintenance of that.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: And, you know, every way that we can honor Norman
Borlaug, we should do it not for the purpose of honoring Norman
Borlaug, but for what he stands for -- science and technology
advancing the production of food at a time when we have starving
people in the world. You can't do too much of that.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: And Norman Borlaug did it the hard way by generations
after generation, year after year to develop immunity to certain
diseases among wheat and rice. Whereas, now you can split a gene and
maybe do something in a few days what it took him a year to do.
And we need to advance very quickly down this line. And he also
brings credibility to the arguments of the luddites that think that we
ought to not have GMOs. And he brings credibility to the argument
that if we didn't do what we're doing, we would have more starvation
in the world than what we have.
And so a person that credited with saving one billion lives, can
you honor that person too much? But you aren't honoring the person;
you're honoring what he stands for and what he did.
QUESTION: Thank you, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Let's see. That was Matt. I've -- is Philip Brasher
on?
OK. I've gone through the entire list. Anybody that I forgot to
name jump in or anybody have a follow-up?
QUESTION: Senator, Gary Digiuseppe.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Go ahead, Gary.
QUESTION: This dispute with Mexico over the cancellation,
suspension by Congress of the trucking rules, apparently, has flared
into retaliation. Should Congress revisit this and reestablish the
program as the president suggested?
GRASSLEY: Well, I'm very disappointed in this news that Mexico
is imposing these sanctions. I haven't seen an actual list of some 90
products that are supposedly targeted, but -- and, obviously, I don't
have any impact how it would impact Iowa any more than maybe you'd
have on how it would impact Arkansas.
We're expecting that list pretty soon. I'm not sure seeing the
list is going to change my basic response. I'm going urge the new
administration to sit down with Mexicans and work out this issue.
Obviously, when it comes to the trucks, maintaining safety of our
roads is a number one priority. But if we can maintain highway safety
and also comply with our trade obligations, that's the way that we
ought to do it.
You know, we had a pilot program on trucks coming into the United
States. That was intended to help us determine the best way to
achieve both objectives of import and export into and from Mexico.
Hopefully, we can learn from our experiences with this pilot program
and find ways through of what now could become an impasse because we
can't afford the impact of trade sanctions as we work to rebound right
now from our economic downturn that we have.
So, you know, we're just going to have to negotiate and work our
way through it. But, you know, decisions made in Washington have
consequences. And a decision was made to not go with the agreement
we'd worked out on the pilot program, and so 90 products and the jobs
connected with those 90 products are going to suffer, probably, more
than what little trucking the Mexicans might bring into America.
QUESTION: So I take it you agree with the congressional decision
to cancel funding for the pilot program?
GRASSLEY: No, I don't agree with that. In fact, I voted for the
pilot program back in the Bush administration. In fact, I suppose, at
that time, I would have thought we shouldn't have a pilot program. We
should honor it.
But it was a process to get us over public rejection that somehow
Mexican trucks and truck drivers were not safe. And we have a right
to control our roads and to make sure the people that use our roads
are safe.
But beyond that, you know, you just can't outright say because
you're from Mexico, you can't come into our country if our truckers
can go into their country.
QUESTION: All right. I wanted to ask you about something else.
I don't know if you signed this letter, but 33 senators did urging the
Budget Committees not to use the reconciliation process to push
through global warming legislation.
Are you aware of an effort like that underway?
GRASSLEY: No, but I would agree with it. And if I didn't sign
it, I probably should have signed it.
QUESTION: Is there talk that that's going to be the case? That
they're going to try to put the climate change bills in with the
reconciliation effort?
GRASSLEY: Let's put it this way. I can't say that I've been
part of any talks or heard about them. But global warming is such a
high priority for this administration and Democrats within the
Congress that are leading it that it wouldn't surprise me.
Now, you can have a reconciliation process that isn't used, but
if you don't provide for it in the budget, you can't use it. So it
might be that they may not have an intention of using it but that they
want it as a threat to move other legislation along.
QUESTION: OK. Is there, in fact, going to be a reconciliation
this year, do you think?
GRASSLEY: I'd have to say the possibility is very great that
it's going to be provided for, but I know in the tax area and the
trade area and the health reform area, Senator Baucus, my counterpart,
does like reconciliation.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, Matt Wile here again at the Courier.
I've talked to some extension specialists and some farmers are
fearful that we're going to see some -- that the extension service
will see some pretty deep cuts here coming up from the -- for the
state of Iowa.
I was just wondering from your estimation, how valuable is the
work done on research farms that extension does? And is there
anything that you or Congress could do to help maybe stem any cuts to
extension, especially, well, in the day when earmarks aren't exactly
looked upon favorably these days?
GRASSLEY: Well, I don't think you're going to have -- that you'd
classify money or more money for extension as being an earmark.
That's a national program.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: It's not a program just for Iowa. My judgment is that
as far as research dollars are concerned, during the '90s, maybe even
starting in the '80s, agricultural research took a tremendous cut.
And they're about down to bear bones now.
And I don't think, if you're going to have a program, you can cut
anymore.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
QUESTION: Senator, Tom Rider at WNAX again.
There's a coalition of groups that are asking the USTR to
vigorously defend country of origin labeling with the expected
challenges coming from Mexico and Canada. What should be done to
defend COOL in your mind?
GRASSLEY: Everything that you mentioned and anything else that
could be out there. But that's the first line of defense. And we
need to use our first line of defense. I don't understand the issues
with country of origin labeling when it comes to food if it's all
right for T-shirts.
And I don't know the legal basis for doing it unless there's
something separate in our trade agreements on food labeling as opposed
to -- as opposed to T-shirts, as an example.
I think -- I think that -- as I recall back five years ago now
that we adopted COOL, there was every intention in writing it that it
was trade compliant -- trade agreement compliant.
Anybody else? OK. Thank you all very much.