SEN. GRASSLEY HOLDS A NEWS TELECONFERENCE
GRASSLEY: I want to start out by telling you about a bill that I'm going reintroduce next year. And it's a bill that we put in thatgot in late, and it was also a topic of conversation I had with thenew attorney general designee, Eric Holder. You folks know I often speak about the Justice Department's lack of focus on agriculture competition issues. I've harped on thedepartment's anti-trust officials to pay attention to the impact onfarmers and independent producers as well as consumers because youprobably know that anti-trust laws are meant to protect consumers morethan they are manufacturers. But in the case of farmers, we are producers and consumers as well. Recently, I was encouraged by the Justice Department's action toblock the acquisition by the third largest U.S. beef packer, JBS -- or the fourth largest beef packer, national beef packing company. So last week, when I met with President Obama's nominee for attorney general, I explained to him that the agriculture industry is very particular because it's highly concentrated. And there's a potential for unfair and anti-competitive behavior. I stressed to Eric Holder the need for department to be moreproactive in monitoring unfair practices and scrutinizing mergers in the agriculture sector. In the past, they have not given nearly enough credence to anti-trust issues in agriculture. It's time for the department to step up to the plate and help maintain a competitive marketplace for farmers as well as consumers. In the next year, I'll continue my efforts in Congress to help give family farmers a level playing field. I plan to reintroduce my bill to create the agriculture competition task force. It requires the Justice Department to issue agriculture-specific competition guidelines, shifts the burden of proof in agri-business mergers to the defendant, and requires the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a post-merger review of the largest agri-business mergers. I'll also be introducing the packer ban again with Senator Johnson. I'm ready for questions, and I'll let you call the names.
OPERATOR: OK. Dan at Successful Farming.
QUESTION: Thank you. Good morning, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Good morning.
QUESTION: If, indeed, Governor -- Former Governor Vilsack becomes the secretary of agriculture, are you optimistic that he will more vigorously enforce payment limits than previous ag secretaries?
GRASSLEY: No. You know what? I believe -- I believe he will,but I'd also say that to anybody else that would be designated secretary by this president. I believe that you're going to find more aggressive action of enforcing laws and making sure that congressional intent is followed, particularly, in the area where we haven't had enforcement of people who make too much money taking advantage of the farm program.
QUESTION: Is there any particular basis for that belief?
GRASSLEY: Well, I would stress it this way that when Democrats tend to be in power, the National Farmer's Union and all the farmorganizations tend to have a greater voice in agriculture, at least,have their positions -- have a higher level of consideration. And they've been leaders in this area. Now, the Farm Bureau has helped quite a bit. But the Farm Bureau being a larger farm organization is divided between agricultural interests of Southeast America as well as California versus the Midwest and kind of what I'd call the mega-producers versus family farm producers. And so the Farm Bureau has had kind of a not as unified position as the National Farmer's Union has had. And it's based upon my belief. It may not materialize, but I think it's been true in the past. The Farmer's Union tends to have -- be listened to a bit more and have their policies carried out a little bit more by Democrat administrations than the Republican ones.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you very much.
OPERATOR: Tom at WNAX?
QUESTION: Senator, good morning.
GRASSLEY: Good morning.
QUESTION: Senator, it was -- it was reported that JBS and the Justice Department and the attorney generals are now asking the judge to set aside the anti-trust laws while they try to settle out ofcourt, perhaps, involving JBS getting rid of some of their packing plants. I'm just curious your thoughts on that development.
GRASSLEY: I hope that that doesn't happen. I've seen, in the case of Continental and Cargill joining forces, that it was anti-competitive, but then there was negotiations to sell off some Continental. And you still had kind of a mega-merger or a merger of megas, I guess you'd say. And it's the same way here. And I think you'd end of having such a merger, but it would be still, from my judgment, bad for the family farmers. And so I hope that doesn't happen. On the other hand, if judges decide to set things apart, they're in the judicial branch of government and there's not much I can do about it.
OPERATOR: Gene, Iowa Farmer Today?
Tom at Brownfield?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator. What do you think will be,from your standpoint now, what do you think will be the biggest advantage for Iowa with the -- with Governor Vilsack's appointment to USDA? GRASSLEY: Well, I'll repeat a little bit that I just said here about anti-trust but not dealing with anti-trust, but you know how I divided up agriculture in America. The mega-producers of the Southeast and California versus the family farmers of the Midwest. And I don't mean there aren't family farmers in the Southeast or California, but it seems like the voice of agriculture from the Southeast and California tend to be the mega-producers where the voice from the Midwest is the family farmer. And I think the family farmer is a strength of American agriculture. And I think Secretary Vilsack understands that and appreciates it living his adult life in Iowa that he will be a spokesman for that. Not meaning that he's not going to be fair to other segments of agriculture, but I think his familiarity with agriculture in Iowa is going to strengthen the voice of the family farmer in the Department of Agriculture. I think that's the biggest benefit.
QUESTION: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Ken at WHO?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator. I know you've probably done so a few times, but could you give me your reaction to the word that Tom Vilsack may well be next U.S. secretary of agriculture?
GRASSLEY: Well, I am very happy to give it. You know, when he was first being suggested or at least his name was being tossed around, I was elated. And then three weeks later, he announced that he wasn't being considered, and I was disappointed and, of course, it was a complete surprise to me that he was ended up being the secretary of agriculture. So I react very positively to it for the reason that I think the more Iowans we get in the executive branch of government, the whole executive branch and the whole country is better off because of the work ethic of Iowans. And then in the case of Vilsack being secretary of agriculture, I think Iowa is going benefit from it. American agriculture is going to benefit from it. And more specifically, within agriculture, the institution of the family farm, because it's 95 percent of how agriculture in Iowa is conducted, it's going to strengthen the voice of the American institution of the family farm in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And I think that that's where Iowa benefits so much and agriculture benefits so much.
QUESTION: May I follow that with a question regarding the cabinet-level positions that have been appointed by the Obama administration of what you think their agenda may be for environmental and agricultural issues?
GRASSLEY: Well, I believe -- I know that environment and agriculture are tied together and some environmental issues affect agriculture very generally. But I think I would separate that, if you'd allow me to, into two different questions. One for agriculture and one for environment. And I would hope that the Department of Agriculture, under Vilsack, would defend the institution of the family farmer when it comes to egregious regulations that are being talked about by the EPA and leaders within the transition team of Obama. I would expect the Agriculture Department to have very high on its agenda a lot of trade issues because American agriculture is so dependent upon trade. And I would think, in the case of the economy being in the doldrums, that rural economic development would have a high priority than it normally would within the Department of Agriculture. On environmental issues, I believe that you're going to find the push for an agreement on global warming to be number one. And that could have a negative impact upon agriculture if you include agriculture in that. And then there's some other environmental regulations like the possible cow tax that we have to worry about that could be coming from EPA.
QUESTION: Thank you, Senator.
OPERATOR: Dan at KICD?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator. In the beginning, you mentioned that you met with Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder about the concentration in agriculture. You didn't mention a reaction. Did he have a reaction to your comments
GRASSLEY: I think he was -- no, he didn't have. And I didn't necessarily want to get into a debate with him because he's going come before our committee, and I'm not going to be able to ask him or present all the issues that I presented to him. But for the benefit of his hearing it from me and the note takers that were with him, I wanted to get on the agenda a long list of things. And I kind of went through that list and didn't necessarily ask for a reaction, just telling him my views.
OPERATOR: OK. Stacia from National Farm Broadcasters?
Gary Diguiseppe?
QUESTION: Following up on the senator's earlier response concerning environmental issues, Senator, I wonder if you expect the Obama administration to roll back some of the recent environmental actions taken by EPA and other agencies. Most recently, of course, we had the ruling that CAFOs will not be required to report noxious emissions under the Clean Air Act.
GRASSLEY: Deep down in my heart, I do believe that they will. Ihave no -- nothing from the Obama people to draw that conclusion. I do believe, though, that the rules that are out there, they're in force, it's going to take them a longer period of time to either modify them or adjust them back. But I believe that within the Obama administration -- and I'm not accusing Obama of this -- but there's a lot of people that -- outside of agriculture that have wanted to include more environmental regulation on farmers. For what reasons, I guess, probably a reason that just nothing ought to be excluded from their point of view. And then within agriculture, you have a few people who want to use environmental regulation to change agriculture to some extent. And from that standpoint, I think that EPA is going through a lot of pressure.
OPERATOR: Philip at the Register?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator. What -- I wanted to ask you -- I wanted to follow up on EPA, but first of all, I wanted to ask you about what is the biggest challenge that Governor Vilsack is going to face at USDA in terms of issues that he has to -- or issue that he has to deal with? The Farm Bill is -- there won't be a Farm Bill for a while, but what's going to be the most important challenge that he's going to face?
GRASSLEY: Well, if it -- let's say if it comes to this business that I've been asked about -- I don't know if it was this program or another program -- about the enforcement of payment limitations and reporting requirements and some people not getting farm payments. That's -- you know, we've had -- part of what we're trying to get done, we've had in the law going back to 1987. Whether or not you were involved, I don't know the exact words,but involved in the business of agriculture is tied by definition. If you weren't involved in that business, you weren't entitled to any payments. That hasn't been enforced. But when he start enforcing that -- and I hope he will -- it's going to be a battle between a lot of interests in agriculture that have been getting away with murder. And I would say those are the biggest, wealthiest producers. He's going to hear from them. And he's going to have to stick to his guns. But I hope he would enforce the law. Another area is the -- is the agribusiness influence within the Packers and Stockyards Act not to fully use the law to the extent it can be used because, quite frankly, it's a stronger law than anti-trust for the benefit of its use in agriculture. And if he would decide to actively push the enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, he's going to get a big pushback from agribusiness, but he's going to be doing one of the best things that can level the playing field for the family farmer, particularly, those who want to hit the spot market in the selling of their livestock, as an example. Another area where he's going to get some pushback -- and I'm --and I think that because he's so much for alternative energy, it's a good thing to have him there -- but the extent to which the food for fuel debate is going to heat up again. It's already heated up. You know when I gave my speech in March against the Grocery Manufacturers Association, you didn't hear much until maybe a month ago. But that group is getting geared up because they think maybe a new team in town under Obama would -- they'd be a little more received. And so I would expect Vilsack to be a moderating voice in that area. I wouldn't necessarily expect him to take exactly the same position I've taken, but I would expect him to be quite a defender of biofuels. And we will need that, too, when we're fighting with EPA to get higher mixture of ethanol like E-11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or some people are even hoping to get it up to 20. It would be very important to have somebody like Vilsack standing up to the -- to EPA as a voice for agriculture on that issue.
QUESTION: Could you ask you real quick what you think about the-- Obama's environmental team? Lisa Jackson at EPA -- particularly,Lisa Jackson at EPA and, to some extent, Carol Brown over at the White House overseeing the...
GRASSLEY: You know, it's not a very good answer to your question, and I wouldn't want it to be considered a definitive position on my part. But they have reputations that go back to where they were previously in public service or, in the case of Brown, quite a while in the Clinton administration. And I have -- I have a view that they are going to have -- that they will lend quite an ear to most anything that environmental lobby wants to accomplish. And it doesn't -- when I say lend an ear, I don't want to leave the impression that I expect these people to do exactly what the environmental lobby wants, but for eight years, that lobby has felt that they've been shut out and they got their opportunity to catch up. And I think these folks would be inclined to help them catch up. I hope I'm wrong on that.
OPERATOR: OK. Does anybody have a follow-up or got added late?
QUESTION: Yes. This is Dan Looker. You mentioned -- sir, you mentioned the food versus fuel debate. Earlier, you talked about the influence the Farmer's Union may have in the new administration or some of their ideas. One of the policies the Farmer's Union has had on the books for quite a while and they haven't really lobbied aggressively for it, but it calls for a grain reserve for farmer-owned ethanol plants. And I wondered if you think that that might be a good idea given the scare we had in the markets last summer just from flooding. And it seems that we could have the same issue really intensified if we ever had a serious drought. What do you think of the Farmer's Union's proposal for a grain reserve just for the ethanol industry?
GRASSLEY: Grain reserves tend to be a damper on the market because they're a known quantity. And somebody is going to trigger when the grain reserve is opened up. And everybody factors that into price. It tends to be a damper on the -- on the -- on pricing. And -- and -- and it tends to then frustrate the marketplace.
QUESTION: Senator, one other sort of along that line. Is there any -- has there been some discussions about including something in the stimulus bill for -- for ethanol to help the industry through this -- through this period? Is there anything that you see they should or could get included in the stimulus?
GRASSLEY: Well, I'd have to look at that a little bit like I looked at my vote on the -- on the ethanol -- on the car bailout. You know, I voted for the TARP because it was -- it was affecting the credit crunch on a macroeconomic basis or just -- let's just say on a macro basis. Whereas, where do you stop if you're going to affect the car industry? How do I say no to the ethanol industry, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? And I think what we -- our fight better is to keep in place the things we have now to encourage ethanol industry. The tax incentive, the RFS, and the tariff thing as the best thing to keep the industry going strong.
OPERATOR: OK. Anybody else?
GRASSLEY: OK. Thank you all very much.
END