GRASSLEY: Our abundance in agriculture launched a very historic feast of Thanksgiving in 1621 between the colonists and Native Americans. So giving thanks for a plentiful harvest foreshadows America's birth as the Bread Basket to the world.
Eventually, National Day of Thanksgiving was proclaimed, and that was done to observe bountiful harvests and honor good stewardship of the land. Many of us will get together with family and friends on Thursday to celebrate a bountiful harvest with long-held traditions and a lot of good food.
On Thanksgiving, I hope that we'll be able to take the opportunity to observe the good work done by the millions of American hardworking farmers and ranchers who work the land to fill America's pantry with affordable, healthy, wholesome and abundant food supply.
And we also want to remember our service men and women, particularly overseas. We hope that next year they'll be able to spend holidays with their families.
Ready for questions.
STAFF: Dan Looker, Successful Farming?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator. I hope you and your family have a good Thanksgiving.
I had a question about the image of ethanol. Al Gore is out with a new book that is apparently somewhat critical of corn ethanol. I haven't read it. But he's also been on a number of television shows, "30 Rock" and others. And I think it's going to be a long time before we see Bob Dinneen or Tom Buis (ph) on "30 Rock."
Do you have any thoughts on how farmers and the ethanol industry might counter, you know, the continuing negative publicity about ethanol?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think most of the research that goes on, particularly -- probably 12 out of 15 different studies that I used during my debate when I was fighting the Grocery Manufacturers Association on the same issue -- continue to cite them. I think we're making great progress in the efficiency of producing more ethanol for -- from a bushel of corn.
We're now --- reached the point where we're producing, at least on a trial basis, efficient production of ethanol from corn cobs. So anybody that's using the food-versus-fuel argument, it seems to me, that they're going to lose some of their steam when we can show that food that would normally go to waste by leaving it in the field is used to produce ethanol, as well.
And we all know that you can only use so much of the proportion of our corn for ethanol, as we've already set that figure at 15 billion gallons. From then on, more ethanol is going to have to come from cellulosic.
STAFF: Tom Rider, WNAX?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, I understand where Senator and Chair Blanche Lincoln is co-signing a measure to give additional payments to producers in counties that have been declared disasters by USDA. How do you feel about that measure? And do you support it?
GRASSLEY: Well, I have supported disaster payments in the past based upon the usual declaration of disaster and based on the proposition that farmers that have had crop insurance wouldn't be penalized for having crop insurance, and doing it in a way that doesn't disincentivize people from always considering the need for crop insurance.
QUESTION: Do you feel that the additional payments would -- would be -- that that bill would go through, given the fact that now we have the permanent disaster program in there?
GRASSLEY: Well, don't forget that I think that -- when you talk about the permanent disaster program that we authorized in the 2007 Farm Bill, I would put that into the same category as people who buy crop insurance. And -- and I would consider that that money would fill the disaster need until it ran out. And then, at that point, consider additional aid.
Now, I didn't know that you were asking about Blanche Lincoln suggesting that we have another disaster program on top of the one that we've already set up. Because unless there's some problems with that, I would see any additional disaster relief -- when that permanent law does not fit the needs for the usual disaster.
STAFF: Julie Harker, Brownfield?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
R-CALF and a number of other groups have written to Congress and to members of the House -- well, to members of the House and Senate about using the limited funding that is left for the National Animal Identification System, to shut the program down.
How do you believe that $5.3 million should be spent?
GRASSLEY: Well, I -- I'm not for mandatory animal ID. But when people want to use ID, I think that we ought to allow people on that voluntary basis to do it. And if it takes some money from the federal government to help that voluntary program along, I would continue to go down that road.
QUESTION: I believe that their concern is that it's going to be made mandatory.
They're also asking for a report of all the testimony that was taken over this year from all of those listening sessions across the country.
GRASSLEY: Well, I think that the latter is a very legitimate request. Whether it was R-CALF or any other organization, when the public's business is public, that's exactly what it means, it ought to be made public. There's no point in keeping things like that secret.
STAFF: Ken Root, WHO.
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
You back home in New Hartford today?
GRASSLEY: Yes, and yesterday, as well. And later on today I'll be with the agribusiness people in Des Moines. And I'll be at the Institute of Cooperation and -- and speaking there and answering questions. And -- and the same thing at the Agribusiness Association.
And then tomorrow I'll be at WHO for "Van and Bonnie," and then I'm going to be at a breakfast with -- breakfast group in West Des Moines. And then I'll be coming back to the farm about noon tomorrow and be here for Thanksgiving, and running the vacuum cleaner and all that stuff.
QUESTION: Just a couple of quiet days for you, then?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: I want to ask you if you could tell me about what you think of how this farm bill's been implemented on that SURE program, or the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program -- Ms. Lincoln seemed to be hitting a nerve with the lack of timeliness of those payments; and whether or not that has really been implemented to the point now that it's in effect.
GRASSLEY: Before I answer your question, Ken, Barbara wanted me to tell you, she's already started to cook for Thanksgiving.
QUESTION: Well, I bet so, yes.
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: I probably need to go back to the previous questioner. Maybe I misunderstood what -- she was saying that Blanche Lincoln was writing letters. I thought it was for additional funding.
If it's problems within the program, since it's a brand new program, I would feel very definitely, we need to work out there kinks. I can expect a new program to have some kinks. But I want to make sure that it's not a subterfuge to keep the program from fulfilling the need that -- that we felt that we had when we established the trust fund.
QUESTION: Well, I don't think this program -- and, Gary, you can come back in here -- really parallels -- sure, it is an additional program or one that at least brings the money to these farmers at the time they need it rather than waiting a year later, like SURE does.
GRASSLEY: OK, so she's filling the gap for that one year, is that right? That's what you're telling me?
QUESTION: Well, I kind of hope...
GRASSLEY: I mean, she...
QUESTION: ... a member of that committee knew.
GRASSLEY: Well, since I don't have her statement in front of me, I don't know.
But let me ask you this: Your question to me is not -- is not about the SURE program working. The point you're asking me about is the point she brought up: that since it's always a year late, you need something to fill the gap in the meantime.
QUESTION: Yes, in general, that is true. Or if you want to comment on the SURE program.
I have part of this measure in front of me -- if we could just clarify for a second. And it says in the release that she's introducing legislation that will provide timely assistance to farmers affected by this fall's heavy rains, flood, and other disasters.
Her quote is -- are you still there, sir?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: "Arkansas farmers, like so many producers across the country, have experienced unusually heavy rainfall." And to move on, about the weather conditions, "This measure will help ensure our farmers can continue to meet our food and fiber needs, while providing the economic strength to rural communities."
And, in general, it says they want the money now rather than a year from now.
GRASSLEY: Well, the only problem I see coming up is it's based upon what the average price is nationally. You've got to determine what that national price is. And so how do you determine what farmers will get?
Now, if she's asking for advance payments and then squaring the round hole after -- after the payments have been received and after we know what the national price is, then that may be legitimate. But I don't know that she's talking about brand new money or just talking about paying money that would otherwise be paid next year after we know the national price and the basis for the disaster payment, and bringing that ahead.
If you bring it ahead, it's not going to cost the Treasury any more money as long as you have a provision in it that when you find out exactly what the national price is, if we overpaid farmers, we'd get it back.
OPERATOR: Dan Skelton, KICD?
Chris Clayton, DTN?
QUESTION: Senator -- Senators -- it's also Senators Cochran and Wicker. And that proposal -- they want to take $2 billion out of the TARP money to pay for it. And I guess that you raise the question of, you created this program to deal with disasters. And it seems -- well, these -- these farmers, I guess, are also supposed to have crop insurance to back them up in these kind of situations, aren't they?
GRASSLEY: Well, the answer is whenever you do disaster payments -- and now with the SURE program you've got that in addition. You set up the program, and if you make the payments, you don't penalize people that were smart enough to buy crop insurance.
And then, additionally, if you do make disaster payments, you make sure that you pay farmers that didn't have crop insurance a little bit less than you do farmers that had crop insurance, for the simple reason that you don't want to discourage people in the future from buying crop insurance because they think they'll get bailed out.
And then the SURE program kicks in. And then if you have additional payments, you would always assume it's because those payments weren't soon enough. But now the problem that we have here coming is that the SURE program kicks in after you know what the national average price is so you've got a basis for how much you're going to pay each farmer.
And then -- and then the senators you named are saying, well, we need help for our farmers right now instead of then. If you -- if you give payments now, it seems to me that it ought to be considered an advance SURE payment, and then settle with those farmers next year when you know what the average price of corn is.
I wouldn't know how else to do it unless you are coming with a proposition that you just want to kick in more disaster relief yet right off the bat. But then that kind of circumvents the purpose of the SURE program, which was to make sure that farmers knew that there was a trust fund available to pay disaster payments and they didn't have to worry about Congress making a political decision, that may be sometimes negative, that you were going to get some.
QUESTION: Well, and part of that issue, too, when you guys got together to create SURE, was it would sometimes take two or three years to get a disaster bill passed. That was part of that battle, wasn't it?
GRASSLEY: Yes. Well, I don't think I can comment more for the three of you than I already have. I hope I haven't confused you in the process.
OPERATOR: Stacia Cudd, National Farm Broadcasters?
Gary Digiuseppe, Arkansas?
QUESTION: I have no questions. Thanks.
OPERATOR: Phil Brasher, Des Moines Register?
QUESTION: Well, Senator, I'll ask you another question about that and then something else.
Do you -- so you would -- you would be opposed to additional disaster payments that were not made as an advance against a prospective SURE payment? Is that right? And then I wanted to ask you about a (inaudible) question.
GRASSLEY: Well, you know, first of all, the four of you that have asked me this question are asking me a question that I'm -- I've got to just think my way through as I answer your question. Crop insurance, the SURE program to guarantee that there's some disaster payment there, and now some other members of Congress want more money.
Then you want to make sure that you don't circumvent why SURE was set up, and that's what I'm trying to think my way through as I was one of those that developed the program. It wasn't my idea, but it was something that I worked through as a member of the conference committee.
And without, you know, now two years -- two years to think through -- I guess it's only one year now since we passed it, one-and-a-half years -- but I don't want to try to recall everything that was said in April, May and early June of that -- of that debate and conference.
QUESTION: OK. Can I ask you about -- EPA is due to make a decision on the C-15 petition from Growth Energy. One, what's your expectation? And if they don't grant this waiver or at least something above E-10, is there any realistic chance Congress is going to get involved or that Congress would do it on its own?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think -- I think Congress has to get involved if they don't do it because we're up against an E-10 stone wall and we have to cross that wall or we're not going to keep the mandates that are already in the law. And if they don't do what I think is very reasonable, to go to E-15, then I think Congress has to intervene.
But do I think Congress would intervene in the next three weeks before Christmas? I doubt it. We're going to spend most of our time on health care. And then you get to a situation where if they don't do it, it's going to be as tough for biodiesel as Congress not extending the biodiesel tax credit, if we don't get that done before Christmas. And that's something that needs to be done as well.
QUESTION: What would you do if -- what if the oil company refiner said, fine, E-15 is approved, but we don't have to sell it until we get some kind of liability protection or there's more research done?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think I would go to the Congress and try to settle the issue in the Congress. And I would hope that industry would cooperate.
There are some oil companies that are very pro ethanol, like Marathon, as an exmaple. I don't know what they would do, but considering the traditional big oil fight against ethanol, I presume that they wouldn't feel inclined to use what's not available and not help us get to the -- to the mandate. I would hope otherwise, and I would be trying to do everything I could to do the otherwise.
STAFF: Jean Simmet, Agrinews?
OK, I've read through the entire list. Did anybody get added late or have a follow-up?
QUESTION: Senator, is your son done with the corn harvest yet?
GRASSLEY: Oh, no. No.
And neighbors across the road -- I'm looking out the window right now -- haven't even started, and they're usually done before we are. It's very slow.
QUESTION: Wow.
GRASSLEY: I don't know how much is left to be done, though.
QUESTION: Thank you, and thank your for the additional commentary.
GRASSLEY: Yes, you bet.
QUESTION: Senator, this is Chris Clayton again.
Getting back to that, you mentioned on the biodiesel tax break, are you anticipating there's going to be one tax package at the end of the year (inaudible) deal with estate tax and then other extenders that are needed?
GRASSLEY: Yes. And I would hope biodiesel would kind of drive all that. But ethanol's -- I mean, estate tax is more apt to drive it, because I don't think Democrats -- the majority party want to go home and pay end of the year and not have any estate tax next year.
QUESTION: So you're looking at, really -- what? -- about three weeks left when you guys return next Monday...
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: ... to really get that moving?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: So is the Senate Finance planning -- planning a markup, then, here -- in the coming week?
GRASSLEY: Nothing scheduled.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Anybody else?
OK, thank you all very much.
QUESTION: Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving, Senator.
GRASSLEY: You bet.
END