GRASSLEY: Today, I'm sending a letter to secretary of state and the U.S. trade representative clarifying the president's position on the ethanol tariff. I want an answer from the administration before the Senate votes on the nomination of Thomas Shannon as ambassador to Brazil.
The questions come up because of what Mr. Shannon said during his nomination hearing earlier this month. He said removal of the tariff would be, quote, unquote, "beneficial." This contradicts what Obama had said as a senator and as a candidate. It's also different from a majority opinion expressed by Congress last year.
A growing U.S. renewable energy sector will decrease U.S. reliance on foreign fuels. Otherwise, we'll risk going down the path of replacing U.S. dependence on foreign oil with U.S. dependence on foreign ethanol. Given the confusing statements of the president's nominee, we need a clear signal of what the president's stance is on this now that he's president.
I'm also leading a group of senators in writing a letter to Secretary Vilsack asking for some changes to the livestock indemnity program. I appreciate the department releasing the rules for the program, but some rules fail to follow basic common sense. Example: Non-adult beef animals are separated into weight ranging less than 400 pounds and 400 pounds or more.
Many of the death losses this year has occurred from extreme heat which has killed heavy steers and heifers and feed lots which can weigh more than 1,000 pounds. However, the weight class of 400 pounds and above would not come close to covering a 75 percent market value payment for livestock in these higher ranges which are close to market weight.
In our letter, we will encourage the department to utilize monthly or quarterly price points to more precisely determine fair market value payment rates for the lost animals instead of setting payment rates, in most circumstances, based on nationwide prices for the previous calendar year.
Tom Rider?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, can you tell me a little bit more about what you want to see in that livestock indemnity? And is that program enough to really take care of these producers that have been hit, particularly, by the flooding in North Dakota?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think if it's administered right, the program's been around a while, but the point being that we need this 400 division between light and heavy increased so that when, you know, a 1200-pound steer dies from heat, there's going to be reinforcement according to what it's worth.
We'll also be seeing rules later this fall on forage losses as well. And we're looking forward to reviewing those, and, hopefully, they follow common sense.
Gene, Iowa Farmer?
QUESTION: No questions.
GRASSLEY: Tom Steever, Brownfield?
Ken Root?
Dan Skelton?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
There's a story in the Washington Post that questions the selection of the Manhattan, Kansas, as the home for the national bioagra defense facility. What can you tell us about how that decision was made to select that site?
GRASSLEY: Boy, I don't have the slightest idea. I'll get back to you with an answer.
Chris Clayton?
QUESTION: Senator, you signed on to that letter that the GOPs on the Senate Ag Committee had sent to USDA wanting more analysis. Did you, yourself, read the analysis last week? And did you feel it was inadequate?
GRASSLEY: It was inadequate, but I was taking my staff's reading of it and her advice on it.
QUESTION: I'm curious because Republicans, on one hand, believe that there aren't going to be a whole lot of benefits for cap-and-trade for agriculture. And, yet, there's this fear that there's going to be a whole lot of acreage taken out of production. And if there's not going to be a whole lot of benefits for a farmer to get into that aspect of it, then why would there be this belief that a lot of acreage would go from crop land to forestry? Do you see my question there?
GRASSLEY: Well, the reason the fear comes is because trees benefit, to a greater extent, from the credits and the allowances, and -- over a longer period of time and with more certainty. And so that could be a situation that I don't think, in a period when we're worried about ethanol taking too much food out of the people's mouths, would you want to stimulate a segment of agriculture, which timber is, to go in that direction where you get neither food nor fiber.
Let's see. Stacia?
Gary Digiuseppe?
Philip Brasher?
OK. Anybody else want to jump in? OK. Thank you all very much.