GRASSLEY: Hello, everybody.
Thus far, President Obama appears to be willing to help ensure a
competitive marketplace for agriculture. I spoke a couple weeks ago
about positive news from Christine Barney, who headed the anti-trust
division Justice Department. She made some positive statements. And
Dudley Butler, recently chosen to head the Grain Inspection Packer
Stockyards Administration, GIPSA, for short, has a great deal of
experience in arbitration in the poultry and cattle industry.
I'm very supportive of both of their efforts and both
department's efforts to further toughen anti-competitive enforcement.
GIPSA has struggled for years with both the Justice Department and
even the USDA's office of general council to convince attorneys to
aggressively prosecute GIPSA cases.
There's been a lackadaisical attitude in the office of general
council about prosecuting and, consequently, this attitude gives
producers little confidence in the office's ability to prosecute
possible anti-trust and anti-competitive practices. For example,
after deciding not to file a complaint, one producer said it this way:
GIPSA wouldn't do anything with my complaint anyway.
Well, with that attitude of people and GIPSA, then you wonder --
or, I mean, it's easy to figure out why the Packers and Stockyards Act
isn't used more aggressively. And you've heard me say many times that
probably the Packers and Stockyards Act is even more beneficial --
this use of it would be even more beneficial to competition and
agriculture than greater enforcement the anti-trust laws.
So I want to do something about that attitude. I'm sending
Secretary Vilsack a letter today encouraging him to allow GIPSA to
employ attorneys that would report directly to the administrator. In
other words, the administrator of GIPSA. If GIPSA's attorneys were
involved with both putting the case together and prosecuting it, they
would have a much greater vested interest in their investigations, and
they would then want to see the case through to completion.
In other words, you get away from this attitude that was -- I
just expressed of an employee that GIPSA wouldn't do anything with my
complaint anyway. That come from a producer, not from an
employee.
So we're -- and I misspoke there when I said "employee." But a
producer going through GIPSA -- we've got to get greater enforcement.
Cases won or lost will the agency start to regain its credibility
and maybe do what I said that they ought to do; enforce the law to a
greater extent. And with attorneys field producers will be able to
talk with the attorneys directly on the case instead of each
Washington, D.C. employees.
You know, I -- it may sound like a joke, and I suppose, to some
extent, I'm trying to be a little bit comical, but I had an employee
left here to go to Des Moines to work in GIPSA and I said why do you
want to go there; they don't do anything; you must not want to work.
Well, I think he's very aggressive. We need to give him some help.
And I would hope that this would help all over the country with
greater enforcement of GIPSA.
Let's go to questions. And you're going to call them?
STAFF: Yes, sir.
GRASSLEY: Yes, go ahead.
STAFF: Dan Looker, Successful Farming?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Speaking of Secretary Vilsack, how effective do you think he has
been at advocating for agriculture with the Environmental Protection
Agency? I know you've had a lot of complaints about various issues
that has been affected by the EPA and Vilsack, of course, has talked
about trying to moderate the way EPA is regulating biofuels, their use
of the indirect land use charge.
But how effective do you think he has been so far?
GRASSLEY: Well, on the one issue that you gave about the
indirect land use and how Vilsack has had any impact, well, I don't
know whether he'll have impact or not, but I think the mere fact that
he's weighing in to support agriculture is very, very important.
And overall, I'm very satisfied with Vilsack's efforts in
agricultural advocacy generally. And in this particular case, very
thankful. In fact, I'm glad he weighed in. I guess I didn't expect
him to weigh in because, you know, you're all within the same
administration, and I thought there might be a discouragement of that.
I'm glad that there wasn't.
Now, beyond other things, I talked about civil rights and the
black farmer situation. I think he's weighed in very strongly in that
area. There hasn't been, since he's been in office, except for low
prices for dairy and pork, to some extent, beef, there hasn't been a
crisis that he could weigh in and do much about because there's not
much legislation out there that he could use except for the buying of
commodities. And I don't know whether he's bought pork as a result of
my letter that went to him within the last month, but, you know,
there's not a whole lot he can do in those areas.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
STAFF: Tom Rider, WNAX?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, I was curious. I understand you had an opportunity to
meet with the Supreme Court nominee, Sotomayor. And I was wondering
if, following that meeting, you think that she'll be friendly to
agriculture, in particular, in the area of property rights.
GRASSLEY: I didn't discuss property rights with her, and I
didn't ask her any specific -- any specific questions about -- I
didn't ask her -- we didn't discuss property rights. I brought up
agriculture, but I did not ask her specific questions about
agriculture.
But I did use this one example you've heard me use so many times
you don't want to hear it again. But fugitive dust and only God
decides when the wind blows. And, you know, I can only tell my facial
expressions because I can't repeat any words that she said because it
was a private conversation and it was one on one. I want to be fair
to her.
But I thought I detected from her an understanding that she knows
that a farmer can't keep dust within the property line if the wind is
blowing 30 miles an hour. And that's about where I want to leave it
because it was a private conversation.
QUESTION: So, generally, you think she'll be pretty friendly to
agriculture from your...
GRASSLEY: Let's put it this way. I didn't get any reason to
believe she'd be unfriendly. But now that's in regard to agriculture
generally. This whole business of property rights and the Fifth
Amendment, I think you need to go in -- I wouldn't want to draw any
conclusion on that point from her because I need to leave that for
questioning.
STAFF: Gene Lucht, Iowa Farmer Today?
QUESTION: No questions.
STAFF: Tom Steever, Brownfield?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
There are still no hearings in Iowa or no listening sessions in
Iowa, but one is about to start today in Jefferson City, Missouri, on
the national animal ID system. How closely are you watching that,
and what do you think about what has been said so far in those
sessions?
GRASSLEY: Oh, I haven't had a chance to analyze the public
hearings on animal ID, but I can give you an opinion that I think, if
you're going to go to mandatory ID -- and I'm not advocating that --
but if you do, it ought to be seen as an extension of the safe food
and nutrition rules that we have and who pays for those today.
At least, when it comes to meat and we're talking about meat in
the case of animal ID, it's paid for by the taxpayers. And if we're
going to go back to IDing every animal back to birth, it ought to be
paid for the same way.
QUESTION: Thank you.
STAFF: Ken Root, WHO?
QUESTION: Senator, good morning. How are you, sir?
GRASSLEY: Very good.
QUESTION: I want to ask you a question about cellulosic ethanol,
and I don't want to ask it abstractly. So here's where I'm coming
from.
The question really is will we ever see cellulosic ethanol come
to market competitive to corn-based ethanol? And my reason for asking
this is just how long can we continue to subsidize the ethanol
industry overall? Or how long can we push hard to get cellulosic
ethanol into the stream without running out of political clout and
finding out that we may never get cellulosic ethanol on line?
So my question: Do you think we'll ever see cellulosic ethanol
come on line and be competitive?
GRASSLEY: I think we do, but a major barrier right now is E-10
versus E-15. And we need the E-15 right now if we're going to get the
investment that it's going to take. I talked recently to an ethanol
entrepreneur, a very big one -- I won't mention the name -- but a very
big one, one that's -- who wants to be out in front on cellulosic
ethanol.
And in addition to federal grants, it's going to take another 250
million -- 250 -- yes, $250 million. And we're not going to the that
sort of investment if this wall of E-10 is not broken down. So I
think that that's the immediate decision that has to be positively
made for ethanol to answer all your other questions because if we
don't break that wall, you know, and you aren't going to end up with a
cellulosic ethanol industry, then we're limited to the 15 billion
gallons which, obviously, is helpful to farmers up to that point, but
it's not doing all that we intend to do with green energy and moving
for greater energy independence and moving away from the food-versus-
fuel argument.
QUESTION: May I ask you how many more years or what horizon you
see for continued blenders credit and import barriers?
GRASSLEY: Well, I can only tell you for certain through 2010.
But I think it's going to be reauthorized. I think this president is
committed to ethanol and would get it reauthorized. There's some
other things that are coming up about the same time like the import
duty. I think that that's -- that's going to be a tough one to
maintain, but I think the blenders credit is going to be easily
maintained at least an extension for a while.
And, you know, and the greater the feed stock through cellulosic,
you know, that's what's going to bring the price competitive. I
suppose, also, there's a factor here what is the price of oil. You
know, you didn't ask about that, but -- and I won't get into that, but
that is a factor.
QUESTION: Well, if you can tell me what it will be, we will both
be rich.
GRASSLEY: Yes. I've -- I'd like to figure out how, for my gas
tank, I could speculate like the speculators speculate.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
GRASSLEY: So I could be ahead of it.
STAFF: Dan Skelton, KICD?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
For our news guys, I understand you're going to meet with former
Iowa Congressman Jim Leach today. He is President Obama's nominee to
head the National Endowment for Humanities. Any comments on Obama's
pick of Leach for that position?
GRASSLEY: Well, nobody has to say anything to convince people in
Iowa that Leach is qualified for almost anything in government because
he was such a good congressman and should still be a congressman from
the standpoint of if it had been any other year, he would have been
reelected that year and he'd still be in Congress. But it happened
the roll of the dice was against him.
And he just has a great following, and the fact that he's a
supporter of the Obama administration which, obviously, a lot of
Republicans don't like, but it's a basis for his appointment. And
what he's going to be doing, he's very qualified to do.
QUESTION: And if I may, what is the basis of your meeting? Why
are you meeting with him?
GRASSLEY: I think more courtesy than anything else. And I
haven't seen him for a long time, so it was an opportunity for him to
come to me instead of my going to him. And it will probably be more
of a just a friendly conversation. But if he asks me to be with him
as kind of a host when he appears before the committee, I would be
glad to respond positively to that. And that's quite a customary
thing to do, and he may ask me to do that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
STAFF: Gary Diguiseppe, Arkansas Radio?
QUESTION: I have a couple of commodity-related questions,
Senator.
A month ago, Senators Casey and Specter introduced a bill that
would support dairy producers based on the cost of production. Do you
see that legislation heading anywhere?
GRASSLEY: I know that the price of milk is very, very low and
people are losing their shirt because of the cost of production is
low. And I wouldn't want to say that there's not some chance for
help, but the Specter-Casey bill will go nowhere because it is
government enforcement -- kind of a commodity-type government
decision-making that is kind of contrary to the principles of freedom
market.
In other words, I'm speaking about supply management. You know,
we've been away from supply management in agriculture for -- even as a
political debate -- for 40 years. And I don't think we're going to go
back there.
QUESTION: Any ideas of what can be done legislatively to support
dairy producers?
GRASSLEY: Yes. Buying commodities for commodity programs.
QUESTION: We already do that, though, and that's under the
secretary's discretion. Do you see any new legislation that could,
perhaps, provide additional assistance?
GRASSLEY: Not right now, but I do recall that, when Jeffords was
still in the Senate, there was Jeffords-Leahy legislation for short-
term help for the dairy industry. And since Leahy is still a
prominent member of the Appropriations Committee, I wouldn't be
surprised if something show up on some appropriation bill this fall.
QUESTION: OK. Over on the other side of Continental Divide,
Senator Tester has reintroduced his bill that would change the beef
check off. We haven't heard much about that since the National
Cattlemen rejected some of the proposals from the Cattlemen's Beef
Board. Do you see any movement on changing the beef check off in any
way?
GRASSLEY: As long as beef check-offs have the approval of
producers, I think you're going to let democracy among farmers make
the final determination on the existence of check-offs. And I don't
see any movement against it at this point.
QUESTION: Any ideas that it might -- there might be an effort to
increase it such as has been proposed by the Beef Board?
GRASSLEY: I've heard nothing of that in the Senate that we would
increase the check off.
QUESTION: OK. One other question. Senator Reid, I guess just
comment that he wants to see immigration reform legislation passed
before the end of the year. Is there any word of something like that
emerging?
GRASSLEY: I believe it's possible we could have immigration
moving as a point of discussion and a point towards getting it into
debate next year, but I don't see it happening this year with health
care reform and the estate tax reform and energy issues and the
Sotomayor appointment. Very little time for major things like
immigration reform. And that's going to take quite a bit of debate.
It's not going to be something that's going to be handled in one week.
QUESTION: Has recession kind of eased the pressure on that
because, from what I hear, there are a lot of alien workers who went
back home? There's no jobs here.
GRASSLEY: I wouldn't want to say that recession has eased enough
that that's no issue. We don't hear around Washington easing. You
can read in the paper that maybe things are going to turn around at
the end of the year for some positive growth, maybe in the last
quarter gradually improving into 2010. That would make it more
possible for the immigration debate to come forward.
And one of the reasons the immigration debate hasn't been more
prominent nor was it prominent during the campaign is it's a very
politically hot issue, and I think you want to cautiously move ahead.
But when you have rising unemployment, not very many people want to be
out in front saying it's OK for people that have come here illegally
to be granted citizenship.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Goodbye.
Anybody else?
STAFF: Philip Brasher, Des Moines Register?
GRASSLEY: Yes? Oh, I thought we were done.
Go ahead, Philip.
STAFF: OK. I've read through the entire list. Does anyone have
a follow-up? OK.
GRASSLEY: Thank you all very much.
QUESTION: Thank you, Senator.
GRASSLEY: Goodbye.