Q:        Why do people have a beef with labeling the origin of the meat sold in grocery stores?

A:        A lot of people want to know where the food on their tables comes from.  Today, many food retailers are required to inform consumers about the country of origin of fresh fruits and vegetables, seafood, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, ginseng, and ground muscle cuts of beef, pork, lamb, chicken and goat, thanks to legislation first passed as part of the farm bill in 2002, and updated along with the farm bill in 2008.  The origin of almost everything you buy in the United States is labeled, so it's a no-brainer to provide the same information about meat and produce.  Consumers deserve to know, and for producers, it's a positive opportunity to build consumer confidence.  Unfortunately, making the law a reality for meat labeling, in particular, was a long and difficult process.  For too long, the U.S. Department of Agriculture delayed implementation by relying on inaccurate information provided by meat processors and containing gross over-estimates about the cost of providing this information to consumers.  Before the 2008 update, congressional committees responsible for funding agricultural programs withheld funds for COOL.

Q:        What's the situation today?

A:        In November, the World Trade Organization (WTO) sided with Canada and Mexico in a challenge by those countries both to COOL rules and voluntary suggestions from the administration to provide useful origin information to consumers.  A trade dispute resolution panel of the WTO said the United States has the authority to require labeling, but the way our program works is unfair to livestock producers in Canada and Mexico.  That's baloney.  The labeling system in place in the United States gives imported livestock the same opportunity to compete in the U.S. marketplace that it had before COOL was implemented.  What's more, Canada, Mexico and other countries require country-of-origin information to be provided to consumers in their own countries.

Q:        What can be done about the WTO ruling?

A:        At this point, the panel decision either will be adopted by a WTO Dispute Settlement Body, or an appeal to the decision will be considered by a WTO Appellate Body.  Some groups are urging the administration to find a way to settle the dispute without further WTO proceedings, but it's time for top U.S. officials to appeal without delay.  In December, I urged the U.S. Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, and the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Iowa's former governor Tom Vilsack, to challenge the panel decision.  Eighteen other senators signed the letter which also urged these agency leaders to make sure that the COOL program meets international trade obligations while continuing to provide valuable information to consumers.  The administration's handling of this WTO dispute will be closely monitored by many of us in Congress.  I encourage them to take all necessary steps to defend our COOL regulations.  America's farmers deliver an abundant, affordable and safe food supply, and they deserve credit for it.

Monday, December 19, 2011

During his weekly video address, Senator Chuck Grassley discusses revelations made during the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing regarding the MF Global collapse in which up to $1.2 billion in customer funds was lost - including money from Iowa farmers and brokers.

Click here for audio.

Here is the text of the address:

This week's oversight hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee on the MF Global collapse yielded some revelations on what happened and who knew what when.

An executive of a financial exchange that oversees MF Global testified that the former head of the firm may have known the firm was using customer funds to make a $175 million loan to a European affiliate.  This statement from the head of the CME Group struck another senator on the Agriculture Committee as a "bomb."

It strikes me as a bombshell, too, because just minutes before, Mr. Jon Corzine continued to express his lack of understanding of how MF Global lost up to $1.2 billion in customer funds - including money from Iowa farmers and brokers.

The revelation wasn't in any prepared testimony.  It came in response to senators' questions.

It goes to show that congressional oversight yields results.

Those responsible can and should be brought to account, whether it's firms playing fast and loose with customer money in violation of the law or the regulators who are supposed to stop malfeasance.

CHICAGO - December 13, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn today issued the following statement regarding today's passage of the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Package:

"Before veto session, we brought the leaders to the table with the goal of delivering economic growth and tax reform for both hard-working families and employers. The package that is on the way to my desk is a win for workers and a win for employers in Illinois.

"At its core, this package is about jobs. By doubling the Earned Income Tax Credit, we are supporting job creation and putting more money in the pockets of everyday working people, which allows them to spend those dollars at local businesses in their communities. Improving the value of the standard personal exemption is an effective tool that benefits all taxpayers and also makes our tax code more fair. The Research and Development Tax Credit and other small business tax credits included in this package will help spur job creation, investment and economic development all over the state.

"Investing in working families and employers is a good investment for Illinois. This package is the result of a bipartisan effort and diligent work by many. I commend the Senate, Senate President John Cullerton, Minority Leader Christine Radogno and Sen. Toi Hutchinson for their hard work to pass a package that will provide much-needed relief to working families in Illinois and help employers put more people back to work."

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Debate on the Balanced Budget Amendment

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is today taking up the Balanced Budget Amendment.  The Senate has passed a balanced budget amendment in the past. More recently, it has come close to passing a balanced budget amendment.  I regret that this amendment has not become law.  I believe that had the Constitution been amended to require a balance budget, we would not today face the dire budgetary situation that is before us.

The balanced budget amendment before us today is straightforward.  It provides that total outlays shall not exceed total receipts unless each House of Congress by a 2/3 vote agrees otherwise.  To provide spending discipline, total outlays cannot exceed 18% of GDP unless 2/3 of both Houses of Congress vote to waive the cap.  The President will be required to submit a balanced budget to the Congress.  To avoid balancing the budget by imposing tax burdens, new taxes or increases in total revenues can be imposed only by a 2/3 vote of both Houses.  And the debt limit will be able to be raised only if 3/5 of both Houses vote to increase it.

To provide a level of flexibility in wartime, the provisions on outlays and receipts, total outlays, and the debt limit can be overcome by a 3/5 vote.  To minimize disruption, the amendment will not take place for five years.  Finally, the courts cannot enforce the balanced budget amendment by ordering a tax increase.

Reverence for the Constitution is a sentiment we all share.  But the Constitution provides for an amendment process.  When it is necessary, each generation has amended the Constitution.  When a guarantee of free speech, or the abolition of slavery, or giving women the right to vote was necessary, the Constitution was amended.  No one said that reverence for the Constitution was the end of the matter.

We have reached that point of necessity with the balanced budget amendment.  The Congressional Research Service reports:

"The budget deficit each year from 2009 to 2011 has been the highest ever in dollar terms, and significantly higher as a share of GDP, than at any time since World War II.  Under current policies, the federal debt is projected to grow more quickly than GDP, leading observers to term it unsustainable."

The very purpose of the Constitution, according to its Preamble, was to extend the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.  It is because the growth in the national debt is unsustainable that our posterity may not receive those blessings.

It is hard to imagine an amendment more in keeping with the goals of the Constitution than this one.  Otherwise, runaway debt will expand exponentially.  A permanent spiral can be created in which the debt feeds on itself.  Take a look at Europe today.  Nations risk default when they overspend.  If we are not careful, the United States at some point will face that same crisis.  It is frightening to contemplate.

We hear from opponents that Congress can balance the budget now, without a balanced budget amendment.  But the fact is that it cannot.

For more than 40 years, Congress has been unable to summon the ability to balance the budget.  Statutes that sought to provide a path to a balanced budget failed.  The only exception was for three years going into this century when a financial bubble provided windfall revenues.  Because Congress has been unable to control spending, the budgets have been in deficit and the national debt has increased.  The only way that Congress will exercise the discipline to balance the budget is if the Constitution forces it to do so.

Forty-six state constitutions require that their budgets be in balance.  They meet that requirement.  As members of Congress, we take an oath to adhere to defend the Constitution.  We take that oath seriously.  If the balanced budget amendment became a part of the Constitution, we will adhere to it or face the consequences from the voters.

Mr. President, this amendment wisely contains effective tax limitations as an integral part.  I have favored a balanced budget with tax limitations for more than 20 years.

For decades, federal spending has far outpaced even the steady and sizeable growth in taxes and revenues.  Raising taxes does not produce surpluses.  The historical fact is that they spur more spending.  For every additional dollar in taxes Congress has raised since World War II, it has spent an additional $1.13.  Raising taxes would make balancing the budget harder, not easier.  Without a supermajority requirement for tax increases, a balanced budget amendment may well encourage tax increases, fueling greater spending, and the continuation of additional debt and costs of servicing the debt.

The failure to balance the budget is a fiscal issue of the greatest importance.  But it is also a moral issue.  Without a balanced budget amendment, our children and grandchildren will pay for this generation's chronic inability to live within its means.  In the absence of an amendment, the standard of living for future generations will likely decline.  The fears of many Americans that the next generation will not live as well as this one are in many respects traceable to decades of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Congress.  This balanced budget amendment would mean a stronger economy, good government, and more jobs.

I believe the American people are willing to do their part to prevent future generations from being saddled with an unconscionable level of debt.  They are willing to do so even if it means that some federal spending they support would be affected.  This is especially true if our budgeting is done fairly.

Mr. President, I believe that if one listens closely to the arguments of the opponents of this measure, one will hear more arguments against a balanced budget than against a balanced budget amendment.  There will need to be difficult actions taken.  It is those difficulties that have prevented Congress from balancing the budget.  Those difficulties are therefore reasons for a constitutional amendment, not reasons against one.  But balancing the budget is necessary.  And it will take an amendment to do it consistently.

We also hear arguments about the need to run deficits when the economy is in a recession. The amendment before us permits Congress to vote to run a deficit in that situation.  But be skeptical of the argument.  If deficits and debt gave us a strong economy, right now we would be in the midst of the greatest economic boom in our history.  Obviously, we are not.  Deficits of $1 trillion plus and a national debt of $15 trillion are not stabilizing the economy.

In fact, I believe that the size of the deficit and debt is one reason the economy is not performing well.  The size of looming deficits and debt is another.  The markets are not viewing that debt as stabilizing a weak economy.  Rather, they view it correctly as a drag on the economy.

On the issue of enforcement, the opponents attack straw men.  They say either that the amendment cannot be enforced, so it is toothless, or they say that the courts will enforce it, leading to chaos.  Both of these arguments cannot be true.

The amendment will be enforced by the President submitting a balanced budget and Congress complying with the amendment, as do state legislators all over the country.  Members take an oath and voters will punish those who do not obey the constitutional command.  With respect to the courts, the text of the amendment prohibits courts from raising taxes.  And standing requirements, ripeness, and the doctrine of a political question will mean that the courts will continue to lack the power of the purse, as has been the case throughout our history.

Mr. President, in the past dozen years, Congress has been unable to balance the budget even when times are good.  Had we passed a balanced budget amendment when it was before us in the past, we would not have racked up the huge deficits that now confront us.

We have heard in the past that a balanced budget amendment was not necessary because Congress could balance the budget on its own.  Those arguments were wrong.

Today, we face one of the worst debt pictures in our history.  If nothing is done, the future will be even worse.  We owe a responsibility to the American people and to future generations to maintain the fiscal discipline that has allowed us to be the world's biggest economy.  Our pleas for a balanced budget amendment have been denied by a minority in the past.

We warned what road lay ahead if we failed to pass a balanced budget amendment.  Time has unfortunately proved us right.  It is not too late if we act now.  But time is growing shorter each year.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and enact a constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced.