GRASSLEY: Well, I wanted to tell you about what I think is this new year's -- I want to say happy new year to all of you -- it's going to be a fairly active year for agriculture.
It's not going to be on the scale of a farm bill, but there's a lot of agricultural interests that are going to be front and center. And I'm calling on the Democratic leadership to immediately bring up consideration of several tax provisions, like the biodiesel tax credit and the estate tax.
And we're also likely to see climate change legislation, which is going to be very harmful to agriculture. And I know all the agriculture groups are taking an interest in it, so I'm not worried about agriculture's voice being heard, but I hope it's respected.
And then, of course, I think we're going to have food safety legislation as well. Then we've got the -- we've got -- the EPA will hopefully come out with a favorable agreement so that we can have ethanol and biodiesel and biofuels. We need to make sure that we use common sense when attempting to apply old and new regulations to agriculture.
And I also hope that we can build on the feedback that the Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture received on their competition hearings, these workshops they're having around the country, starting in Ankeny in March, I believe, because the agriculture industry has become pretty consolidated, where it's very difficult for the family farmer, the independent producers and the small market participants to get an equal access to fair and competitive markets.
So I'm going to continue to be concerned about the increased concentration of agriculture that's a detriment to the American consumer.
And I'm going to push the Democratic leadership and the administration to pass free trade agreements, because agriculture has a lot to gain from them.
And yesterday marked the first day of a sign-up for the new disaster assistance program, the SURE program, so I hope farmers will remember that and take advantage of it if -- if it works out for them. Farmers who may have had crop losses going back to 2008 floods may be the ones that would -- that the program might help. Our county FSA offices can help anybody who thinks that they might be eligible.
I'll have you call the names, staff.
STAFF: OK.
Dan at Successful Farming?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
With the weather the way it is these days, it probably isn't appropriate to bring up the subject of global warming, but you mentioned that there may be climate change legislation considered in the Senate this coming year, and I wondered if you have seen an article that ran in a recent issue of the New Yorker about China's crash program for clean energy.
The article is called "Green Giant," by a writer named Evan Osnos. And I -- I won't -- I can't possibly cover all of it, but it mentions that China has doubled windmill capacity every year since 2006, that they are now the leading manufacturer of solar cells in the world.
And one of the criticisms of the climate bill has been that if we pass it, it would put us at a disadvantage globally. But it appears that China is, in fact, moving ahead with some of the same things that are supposed to be the benefits of this climate bill here in the U.S.
And I know you probably...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... I know you probably haven't read the article and it's not fair to ask your reaction, but I...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... I did wonder if you see China as a competitor in green energy.
GRASSLEY: Well, of course they're a competitor, but no more than they are in all of manufacturing.
And I think that their publicity obviously serves a purpose of public relations for their company -- their country beyond just their advertising what they're doing, because they're the number one emitter of CO2 and they are not agreeing to meet the same goals that the United States has to meet, so they got to talk about their green energy to obfuscate on the shortcomings they have of not agreeing with an overall policy to reduce CO2 on the same basis that the United States is called upon to do it, or the world's calling upon the United States to do it, and Europe at the same time.
So consequently I don't see it as anything different than just being able to cover up some of their other shortcomings.
QUESTION: I see. Thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: OK.
STAFF: Tom Rider?
Tom Steever at Brownfield?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
I see that Secretary Vilsack has even said that -- or acknowledged, at least, that climate change analysis models are indicating that producers may be taking a lot of land out of production into forest production in the next 40 (ph) years (inaudible) of climate change legislation.
Do you think that that marks a change of direction or a change of heart in the -- for the administration on climate change legislation? What could this mean?
GRASSLEY: OK. Well, the fact of the matter is that growing trees is one of the ways to show the rest of the world that you're developing credits that you can sell. The trouble is you can't eat trees, and the extent to which it might replace our ability to grow foodstuffs is going -- is going to be a (inaudible). And I don't think that they're, quite frankly, are going to be very successful in promoting timber, except in areas of the country where you can't grow row crops.
And from that standpoint I think it's trying to make -- it's a public policy that's trying to make agriculture look like it's coming out well under cap-and-trade when, in fact, we're going to lose income.
STAFF: Bob at WHO?
Dan in Spencer?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
The Farm Service Agency is moving to beef up its enforcement of payment limitation and eligibility (inaudible) and meet those eligibility guidelines.
Is this something that -- that you support, sir?
GRASSLEY: You'll have to speak into the telephone better, and speak louder.
QUESTION: All right.
Is this better, Senator? Can you hear me?
GRASSLEY: Well, let me ask Beth.
Can you repeat his question to me?
QUESTION: Yes.
GRASSLEY: Beth?
STAFF: Yes?
GRASSLEY: Repeat the question.
STAFF: Hey, Dan, will you give it to me one more time?
QUESTION: Certainly, Beth.
It has to do with stricter enforcement of payment limitation and eligibility by the Farm Service Agency, including working with the Internal Revenue Service.
STAFF: Yes. Senator Grassley?
GRASSLEY: Oh, I got it now.
STAFF: Yes.
GRASSLEY: Well, listen, I think in the area of "actively involved" -- quote/unquote, the legal term "actively involved" -- that there could be a weakening of it, but I have not seen the final regulations yet. I've just seen some, you know, commentary on them. But I -- I'm not going to be satisfied until we're -- we're going to make sure "actively involved" means that you're going to be farming, and not farming from a windshield or not farming by a telephone conservation from Wall Street to some farm manager in Iowa.
But other aspects of it I think are doing a very good job of carrying out what we intended in the 2008 farm bill.
STAFF: Stacia, National Farm Broadcasters?
Philip at the Register?
QUESTION: Yeah, Senator, I want to ask you about a couple of things.
Just a follow up on the climate change and the food safety bills that you mentioned: What do you think are the prospects for either of those getting through the Senate?
GRASSLEY: I think the prospects for the food safety bill are very good. I think prospects for cap-and-trade are not very good.
QUESTION: And, you don't think the climate bill will get out of the Senate?
GRASSLEY: I don't believe so.
I believe that with the controversy that came up after the House passed it, and the -- the lack of any accomplishment whatsoever -- regardless of the official statements put out, there was no accomplishment of anything in Copenhagen, I think it doesn't spell a good opportunity.
And then you have the e-mails being released, and that's another factor. And even though they have not been fully analyzed at this point, I think they've also contributed to the negative prediction.
QUESTION: OK.
Other areas -- the biodiesel credit -- what -- how are things? Has anything changed in terms of the prospects scheduled for getting that reinstated?
GRASSLEY: Well, just based upon the letter that -- that Senator Baucus and I made public, it seems that -- that -- and what I've heard through my staff, although I haven't had a conversation with Senator Baucus since December 24th, it seems to me that there's a real intention of getting the extensions, as well as the estate tax, done in the early months, and I mean maybe not January, but February and March, of getting that stuff done.
STAFF: OK. That's the list. Does anybody have a follow-up added late?
QUESTION: This is Gary Degiuseppe.
GRASSLEY: Gary?
QUESTION: Senator, increasing talk out of the House and out of the White House about immigration reform. It sounds as though the House bill that they've put forth doesn't deal with H-2A. It does deal with this amnesty issue and increased border protection. Do you see much opportunity for immigration reform in 2010?
GRASSLEY: Except for the word "amnesty," the answer is yes. But if people are insistent upon amnesty, whether it's a general immigration reform bill or whether it is just an agriculture bill for guest workers, I think it's going to be very difficult to get it passed.
And I think part of that isn't related to the political aspect of it, as it's related -- as it's related to (inaudible) the country into the United States in a legal fashion is going to run into a kind of a resistance that would say, "Well, what are those -- what are those guys in Washington thinking about?"
QUESTION: Are the farm interests pushing you to accept an amnesty with the argument that we need these workers; we can't get along without them?
GRASSLEY: The answer is yes, and that's -- that's the argument behind the -- I guess I'd call it the Feinstein bill. Then you've got the Chambliss (inaudible) has everything that the -- that the Feinstein bill has except for amnesty, I believe. I don't know that it's quite that simple for me to -- because it's been two years since I've dealt with the two pieces of legislation -- two and a half years, now.
Sop -- but I believe that that's the difference. And -- but it's a significant difference.
But you have this situation where, if you're going to get union support in California for a guest worker program, you've got to have amnesty. But if you're going to get Southeastern and Midwestern support for a guest worker program, you can't have amnesty.
QUESTION: And, you know, getting back to the guest worker issue, because that's been a point of contention between the current administration and the rules that were put forth by the last one, can Congress intervene and resolve this? Can you come up with a plan that -- that gets everybody together?
GRASSLEY: I don't -- I don't see how you can in this environment, where we have a recession. And even though there may be workers needed in a certain aspect of the U.S. economy, it's pretty difficult to bring up even a narrowly drafted one as long as the issue of amnesty is part of it.
QUESTION: No, I was talking about the guest worker issue, the H-2A issue.
GRASSLEY: Well, if I'm wrong, you'll -- you'll have to correct me, and I'll stand corrected, but I -- the -- the guest worker program -- I know it splits into different divisions, but I'm not sure that I, in my mind, separate the word "amnesty" from either one of those divisions. And if it is separate, then you'll have to ask me the question again.
QUESTION: All right.
The administration had -- the Bush administration had, in its last days, proposed changes in the guest worker program, the H-2A program, that would allow greater authority on the part of employers to determine the need for local workers and would change the wage scale.
The new administration seeks to change that, and I believe it's currently tied up in courts. So my question was whether Congress can come up with a fix to H-2A?
GRASSLEY: No, I don't think so.
And -- and the original rescission of that must have come on January 21st, when they rescinded a lot of regulations that the Bush administration just put into effect. And the business community is the one that took that court. Is that -- is that what you've just got done telling me -- as opposed to the immigration groups?
QUESTION: Yes, I believe it was industry that brought it to court.
GRASSLEY: I (inaudible) the solution to that, it's going to be a solution in the courts and not in the Congress.
QUESTION: OK. All right, thank you.
STAFF: Anybody else?
QUESTION: Matt Wilde from the Courier in Waterloo.
STAFF: Oh, go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: All right, Senator, given the fact that the biodiesel tax credit was not extended and two more ethanol plants filed for bankruptcy recently, what's your take on the health of the biofuel industry in Iowa?
And, as a follow-up, do you think the enthusiasm for biofuels has waned at all in Washington?
GRASSLEY: No, I just don't think it gets the attention it should get. And when you're talking about biodiesel and ethanol and all these other extenders and -- and if you include all extenders together, there's about 73 -- it's easy for one to get lost over the other, except for those of us from the Midwest, where biofuels are so important.
So I think it's a case of just getting it up.
I think in (inaudible) in 2010 about the only thing that might be controversial and difficult to maintain would be -- and I'm going to fight to maintain it -- but that would be the ethanol import duty.
QUESTION: What do you think the health of the industry is in Iowa, then?
GRASSLEY: Well, a lot healthier now than it was 12 months ago.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: Obviously, not as healthy -- when you're making 42 cents a gallon versus $2 a gallon, it's not as healthy. But then, that's just like farmers can't expect $7 for corn all the time.
So the idea is to have a fairly stable market, both from the standpoint of the input costs for the ethanol plant. And when you get corn around $4 and it's predictably within a 50 cent range, I think you've got that sort of stability.
And the other stability then comes from having a more predictable price of oil. And I think that with the actions of OPEC that they're taking right now, we're going to stabilize the price of oil in the $70 range for a while.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Senator, are you concerned that there could be an impact on investors of letting this biodiesel credit lapse; investors not just in biodiesel but in other forms of alternative energy, in ethanol, cellulosic ethanol and so forth (inaudible)?
Some are already a little nervous about something that's dependent on government.
GRASSLEY: Well, of course, But then, we wouldn't even have an industry if we didn't have some of these incentives.
And I think that we've proven, after 30 years, that ethanol is -- is gaining some ability to stand on its own. We still have the incentive, but eventually we won't have to have, particularly when we expand other sources of -- of ethanol.
And so, biodiesel is about the same place that ethanol was 30 years ago (inaudible) hydrogen for automobiles, you know. So -- and that isn't around the corner.
So I think we're in -- in a pretty good shape.
But the answer is that right now, with this tax credit not being renewed on December 31st, I think that -- that every day is touch and go for biodiesel.
STAFF: OK. Anybody else?
Thank you all very much.
GRASSLEY: OK. Goodbye.
END