GRASSLEY: As Congress returns from the summer break, committees and senators are gearing up for another stretch of legislative work probably going till near Christmas except for time off for Thanksgiving.
This week, the Senate Ag Committee is going hold a hearing on agriculture producers' perspective under the cap-and-trade system. We really have to appreciate Senator Harkin holding additional hearings on such a critical issue for agriculture. It's especially important that we hear directly from producers at the grass roots.
Just last week, we saw the positive impressions that can be left on federal officials when the EPA visited Iowa. EPA officials heard straight from the mouths of farmers the impact that there rules and regulations made can have on families and the livelihood of farmers.
The stakeholders shared wagonloads of information, statistics, real-life examples that helped the group understand and learn the issues at the grass roots. The EPA asked a lot of questions, appeared to take the message from our family farmers to heart, and promised further dialogue with our producers and stakeholders.
I'm glad that Ms. McCarthy and Ms. Oge took the time to learn a little about how agriculture industry operates and the advanced in technology that are helping farmers produce food, fuel, and fiber for the entire world. The comment period for RFS-2 is open until September 25th. The EPA officials told us that they really want to hear from Iowa farmers, so it's critical that Iowa producers and stakeholders continue to voice their opinions.
Dan Looker?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
I just wondered if you have heard anything back from the EPA officials since they were here last Thursday -- here in Iowa -- and if you have any sense as to whether or not they really will change the indirect land use calculation.
GRASSLEY: No, but I think it's my responsibility to follow up with them, and we will be following up with them and their staffs to make sure that the dialogue that was promised happens.
Michelle Rook?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
There has been some discussion that, perhaps, USDA may -- because of their authority -- go in and try to tighten farm payment limits. Do you think that they would be able to get this accomplished especially things like, maybe, not allowing both a farm wife and a husband to take those payments separately?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think the law of last year -- the Agriculture Act of 2008 -- is going to govern everything. And I know that there's some flexibility within that law and, obviously, I'm hoping that they will be tighter -- tight in the interpretation of law so that we make sure that people aren't using subterfuge to get around it and that they'll have enforcement of the law.
And I think one that's very essential but not entirely related to the 2000 -- 2008 Farm Bill -- and that's engaged in the business of farming -- actively engaged. Those rules need to be very definitely enforced and ought to have been enforced even prior to the 2008 Farm Bill.
Then another one that is pretty commonsensical and that, again, implies enforcement outside of the 2008 Farm Bill because this deals with people who have died getting farm payments, and there's no reason for farm payments to go to people who have passed on.
And, of course, we have evidence from the Government Accountability Office that that has happened and that there wasn't proper checks in place in the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make sure that farmers who are -- have died aren't getting farm payments.
Tom at Brownfield?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator Chambliss says that there should be additional hearings on climate change legislation because of a study he cites that 71 out of 98 representative farms are going to be worse off than better off because of considering cap-and-trade.
How do you see that?
GRASSLEY: Well, I hope we have whatever number of hearings it takes to get the job done. And, of course, Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, working together, probably are responsible and are responsible for the hearing we're having. How many more we ought to have? We ought to have whatever it takes to get all the facts out on the table.
The extent to which certain number of farmers will be heard or not helped by cap-and-trade, I think, you're going to find in a lot of row crop areas that they're not helped. And in the area of timber, they're going to be helped.
But timber does not deal with food as the farmer does. And that ought to be taken into consideration that we have a level playing field for all segments of agriculture.
Bob Quinn?
Dan Skelton?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
The president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, Bob Stallman, visited Secretary Vilsack last week, and he wants the government to buy at least $100 million more pork and to help troubled producers make some loan payments. Is there more that USDA can do for pork producers?
GRASSLEY: Well, I don't know the exact quantity of commodities that need to be purchased for various food programs and school programs and things to that nature, but buying it now when pork is cheap has two benefits. It saves the taxpayers money, and it helps out pork producers.
And they recent did announce the purchase of more millions -- in the neighborhood of 30, I believe -- beyond the 50 that they had originally bought. Now, I think this 30 is in response to our request that they buy an additional 50 million. And, you know, we got a letter back, maybe within the last month, saying that they weren't going to purchase any more.
So the fact that they did decide to purchase kind of surprised me. So, you know, it saves the taxpayers, and it will help out the pork industry. And, of course, Section 32 money is out for fiscal year '09, so it would -- any additional money would have to come either through supplemental or through fiscal year 2010 money. But, remember, we're only, you know, less than 30 days away from that.
Also, it's very important for pork producers that the free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea be approved, particularly, the South Korean one would be very beneficial to agriculture and to pork producers.
Stacia, National Farm Broadcasters?
Gary, Arkansas?
QUESTION: On that pork producers' issue, Senator, several groups, including the NFO, are proposing a government-run sow retirement program. Do you think that's a bad or good idea?
GRASSLEY: Well, you know, I guess when it was going to be voluntary and they were working on it and that fell through, I thought it was a good idea. And I guess that I would have to be consistent with backing a dairy buy-out as maybe a thing to consider for pork.
But to tell you the truth, Gary, the economics of pork is not as -- I shouldn't say the economics of pork because I know they're losing money. What I'm trying to say is that the buy-out of sows -- I'm not sure I know the economics of that and whether they get the participation and who would participate -- like much smaller number of people involved with dairy and the buy-outs that we've had, either two or three so far.
So I just don't want to comment on the economics of it but, obviously, if you've got cooperation, it would be good now. Now, something that -- you know, we talked about whole-herd buy-outs for dairy. OK. I guess the extent to which you'd have whole-herd buy-outs for pork -- and many more pork producers than there are dairy producers -- the extent to which we might be eliminating independent producers as opposed to the mega-producers -- let's say the 15 or 20 largest in the United States that I'll bet have the overwhelming percentage of the sows -- that would be very disturbing to me if we had a federal program that would encourage small producers to get out of business.
Now, a lot of them are leaving business anyway, and I suppose some of them would leave with less negative income if they had a buy-out. But we could be trending towards just a few mega-producers controlling everything in pork.
QUESTION: Well, you know, let me bring this up. I had an interesting conversation with Ron Plane (ph) at the University of Missouri the other day who said he believes the smaller producers are doing better in this shake out because they grow their own grain. The cost of grain has been an inhibiting factor.
So is the NPPC pushing for a bailout in purchases of pork and all that basically to defend the Smithfields and the Tysons to corporate producers?
GRASSLEY: Well, I don't know for sure, but I think that the big producers have a pretty big voice in the national pork producers, and I think I'd like to hear from several state organizations before I made a judgment on that issue.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Philip Brasher?
OK. I've gone through the entire list. Anybody else?
OK. Thank you all very much. Goodbye.