GRASSLEY: Over the last few years, our industry of agriculture
has seen its livestock producers take hit after hit with various
economic factors. You know, beef producers saw exports decline due to
unscientific trade restrictions placed by other countries on us.
Beef, pork, chicken, dairy were all clobbered by high corn prices.
Once that price issue settled down, pork and dairy producers
continued to see low prices and oversupply. As we get very deep into
what is now called Dairy Month, dairy farms are struggling to stay
afloat. Over the last couple of weeks, I've been meeting with these
farmers across Iowa to discuss their economic situation. I've been
hearing their concerns and learning about the questions facing the
industry.
In conjunction with Dairy Month -- and June is always Dairy Month
-- one of my favorite days on Capitol Hill happens to occur. It's the
day that the International Dairy Food Association holds an ice cream
party here on Capitol Hill. It seems even more important maybe now
than ever before to remind the nation the importance of dairy products
in our daily diets and to support this agricultural industry at a time
when prices are so low and farmers are losing money.
Just like I told you I was having a pork chop a few weeks ago
when the price of pork went down dramatically because of swine flu,
this week and every week, I'll be eating plenty of ice cream.
Ready for questions.
Tom Rider?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, is there anything that can be done at the federal level
to help out these dairy producers that are really struggling? I mean,
obviously, they're not the only ones, as you mentioned, but is there
anything specifically that you guys can do in Congress to help them?
GRASSLEY: Well, I've seen Congress step in before under the
leadership of Leahy and when there was a Jeffords in the Congress of
the states -- step in and help in some instances. We have the buy-out
now going on of beef cattle to reduce herd size. We have government
capability of purchasing products, and we also have the government
subsidizing some exports at this point.
QUESTION: Is there any legislation that should be tried to maybe
provide them some funding, Senator, is that not doable with the economic
situation?
GRASSLEY: Well, probably the latter is an overriding concern.
But, also, we have a situation where there's nothing moving right now
that I can -- that I can point to.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Gene, Iowa Farmer?
QUESTION: No questions.
GRASSLEY: Ken Root or Bob Quinn?
Dan Skelton?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Following up on Tom's question, taking a look at the swine
industry, there's certainly a lot of hurt there as well. I know
Senator Harkin is talking about ratcheting up the pressure on China
and Russia to end their bans on U.S. pork. Do you see anything coming
through?
GRASSLEY: Well, that's a negotiation process, a jawboning
process. I suppose we could file something with the WTO. We
shouldn't have to.
You know, I spoke before, maybe a month ago, about how
misinformed Chinese were about the fact that we don't have -- that
they're not letting our meat in and they're using swine flu as an
example. We could help the swine industry by passing our free trade
agreements that we have are Korea and Colombia and Panama would be one
way to help.
But in regard to China, we need to be moving aggressively there
because the scientific community that's headquartered in Paris, OIE,
has made clear that our meat is safe and that there's no transferral
of swine flu through eating -- through eating the meat.
You remember maybe three or four weeks ago, I announced through
this program encouraging USDA to consider up to $50 million purchase
of pork for our school lunch programs.
Stacia?
Gary, Arkansas?
OK. I've gone through the entire list. Anybody want to jump in?
QUESTION: Senator, it's Philip Brasher with the Des Moines
Register.
On the -- you mentioned dairy, you mentioned pork. Some members
of the House from the food and vegetable growing states, Secretary
Vilsack has himself talked about the need to have more balance in
terms of what they purchase for school lunches, nutritional balance,
more fruits and vegetables, heavy on cheeses and meat and that kind of
thing.
Do you think that's a proper...
GRASSLEY: Well, considering the problem we have with obesity --
and I'm not sure that pork and turkey and meat like that is what
contributes to obesity as much as just sugar and as much as
inactivity. But the extent to which obesity is a major problem in the
United States, not just for young people but for everybody, more
education and a better diet for everybody, including Chuck Grassley,
would be an appropriate thing.
And the step to which government has an opportunity to influence
that through school lunch programs, it ought to be influenced. But I
would say it ought to be balanced. And if there's any attempt to
leave red meat out of the -- out of the diet, I would say that that
would be wrong.
But the emphasis upon more fruits and vegetables is purely --
very legitimate.
QUESTION: Another question, with regard to the competition
issues that you've talked about so often, do you -- what are your
expectations for this administration? Do you think -- for USDA, in
particular. Do you think -- do you see any signs -- some of the
recent appointments like Doug O'Brien and John Farrell. These
are people who have some experience as market issues, competition
issues.
What kind of difference, if any, do you expect?
GRASSLEY: I expect it's going to make a big difference, and all
to my delight. I think these type of people being appointed, plus
what the Assistant Attorney General Varney has said about anti-trust
and agriculture or anti-trust generally, but she's specifically
mentioned agriculture, you know, these things have seldom happened in
previous administrations whether it's Republican or Democrat.
And then, also, you've got what I see as increased activity in
the Packers and Stockyards Act. We haven't seen any results yet, but
increased interest. I think that not only does this support moves
that I made both in the way of legislation and in the way of
initiatives I've taken through letters and admonitions to
bureaucracies in the past, but I see maybe even going beyond some
things that I wanted to do.
Now, I don't have specific evidence of going beyond what I want
to do, but, you know, this increased activity this early in this
administration is my delight.
QUESTION: Does this have anything to do with having a number of
Iowans and an Iowa secretary?
GRASSLEY: Yes, I believe so. And maybe familiarity both through
the Congress because some of these people have come from staff on the
Congress plus Governor Vilsack, knowing of my interest. Look at how
long I've been involved in the civil rights activity with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. And it's one of those things that I talked
to Governor Vilsack about back in December when he came to my office.
And on his statements to our committee and on speeches he's given
in Georgia and then recent initiatives he's taken to carry out what he
previously has said, you know, and I think it will have results. It's
too early to see the results. But I think that this is something that
he's inclined to do. But it's something that he, obviously, has my
support. And he told me he was going to do it when I brought it up
with him.
So, you know, it's got something to do with familiarity both of
issue as well as personalities.
OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, this is Dan in Spencer again.
GRASSLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: As far as I know, still no animal ID lifting sessions
in Iowa. Are you putting any pressure on USDA to get one?
GRASSLEY: Not beyond what I've already done. You know, we've
talked about it three times on this program. I know somebody down at
USDA is always listening to -- listening to this program so they know
my feelings on it. I've spoken strongly in favor of it. And since
their recent announcement of when they -- where they were going to
have these hearings, they've heard your message and they've had some
in the Midwest now, even specifically not Iowa.
But they've had them in Nebraska and, you know, I think things
are similar there. I don't think they necessarily have to be
geographically located in Iowa to get the opinions of people in
Nebraska would be similar to the opinions of people in Iowa on some of
these things.
OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, you said -- who listens to these calls down
at USDA? And how quickly do you get calls about what you said?
GRASSLEY: Well, I noticed it more in the previous
administration than I have in this one, but we still think that
they're listening. And the reason why is people make reference to it
from time to time. In other words, I can see it in print that I've --
that I've done that.
But I know in the previous administration, there was somebody,
but I don't think we got a name connected with it. But somebody had
it as a regular job to listen to -- call the 800 number and listen in.
Not simultaneous with you, Philip, but later on.
QUESTION: OK.
QUESTION: Senator, Tom Rider again.
With the House Appropriations Subcommittee, Ag Appropriations
Subcommittee cutting funding, zeroing out funding for the National
Animal ID Program, does that mean that we'll probably end up seeing a
mandatory ID program?
GRASSLEY: Well, you can't administer it without some money, but
I would go beyond that -- you've heard me say on this program in the
past that it ought to be an extension of the present meat inspection
program tracing things back to the family farm. It ought to be paid
for by taxpayers if the safety of the food and safety for the consumer
is the main interest. Although, there's a subsidiary interest of
farmer making sure that the food is safe.
But, you know, we've had meat inspection for how many decades
paid for by the taxpayer? And this ought to be paid for by the
taxpayers, as well.
OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Gary Digiuseppe.
GRASSLEY: Yes. Go ahead.
QUESTION: An article in USA Today talking about the soda tax
again. I really haven't gotten any sense over whether this has much
of a chance to passage. Do you see it actually being adopted as part
of a way to fund a health care plan?
GRASSLEY: No, for two reasons. One, it's a nuisance tax.
Number two, it -- at least for Republicans, we think that money saved
on health programs or money raised on taxes within health programs
ought to be the sole source of offset for health care reform.
Democrats feel differently about it, but I don't think it includes a
tax on sugar.
QUESTION: Senator, would anybody know where that busy signal is
coming from? That doesn't really make it usable for audio purposes.
GRASSLEY: Yes, I know it. I'm sorry for you, too, but...
QUESTION: Could you restate it, please? They've gotten rid of
it.
GRASSLEY: OK. Yes, I'm glad to restate that.
I think several reasons, number one, it did appear in the first
option paper. It hasn't appeared on any paper since then. Secondly,
it's a nuisance tax. Thirdly, Republicans have taken a view that all
revenue coming for health care reform ought to come within the health
system either saving money on Medicare and Medicaid or, number two,
some sort of a tax like, let's say, the exclusion as an example, as a
tax on health that previously has been tax exempt.
QUESTION: You know, we see so many articles here about how
farmers and ranchers are uninsured, underinsured, and their health
care costs are putting strain on their businesses. Do you see when
this health care debate is concluded farmers and ranchers net
benefiting from any sort of plan that might be devised?
GRASSLEY: Well, if they don't have insurance, there would be a
net benefit, particularly, if they're under 400 percent of poverty or
some of us would prefer it would be 300 percent of poverty because
there would be some subsidy for health insurance. Now, if you were
over that system and you felt you didn't want to be insured, there may
be a penalty from the standpoint that if we have what's called an
individual mandate, you would have to provide health insurance for
yourself.
GRASSLEY: But we also have encouraged health insurance for
farmers and self-employed people through the tax exemption that exists
for them like it does for John Deere and its workers.
The -- getting back to the soda tax, I said it was in one of our
option papers. Understand that that was not an endorsement by Senator
Baucus and me as we put the paper together of that form of taxation.
QUESTION: Sure. But, you know, my question previous is, you
know, as a sector, would agriculture net lose out or gain from the
plans that are being discussed right now on health care reform?
GRASSLEY: Oh, boy, I don't think I can give you an answer. I
have not -- we've not -- I will just say it -- dissected this into
segments of the economy. So I just don't have an answer for you.
QUESTION: OK. All right. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator Grassley, this is Jean Simmet from Agrinews.
GRASSLEY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: And I just had a dairy question, too. A few weeks
ago, there was a group of farmers that had a rally in Manchester at
the sale barn. And a number of the speakers there talked about this
Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2009 which has been
introduced by Senators Casey and Specter.
And I was just wondering what you thought of that legislation and
if you think that will go anywhere.
GRASSLEY: Well, let me tell you what I told the leaders of that
rally because I had a conference call with them afterwards.
QUESTION: Oh, OK.
GRASSLEY: A couple from Iowa and then some from other states.
And they asked specifically for that bill to be passed. And I said
when you get into supply management and production controls, that
that's not favorably received in the Congress. We've been moving away
from that sort of control on any segment of the economy, not just
agriculture but any segment.
So consequently, I don't think it has much chance of passing. I
wouldn't say, though, that there would not be some emergency help for
dairy that could come in a separate piece of legislation, but it would
not be in the form of production controls and supply management.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, what did you mean by -- define "nuisance tax"
and what else would fall into that category.
GRASSLEY: Well, I think the word "nuisance" in my mind would
come from the fact that there's never been a tax like that other than
the normal sales tax on soft drinks. And soft drinks, being pretty
much mom and apple pie stuff, any effort to tax it, I think, would be
viewed by the public as just being a nuisance. And, particularly,
this suggested tax was a very high tax. It was almost -- you know,
that instead of teaching people moderation and maybe eating things
that don't have -- drinking things that don't have so much sugar in it
was putting everything in the same basket because I don't think that
there was any effort to tax Diet Coke different than just straight
Coke.
Anybody else? OK. Thank you all.