GRASSLEY: Today, I'm sending a letter to Vilsack, and it's in regard to
delayed implementation of a program we call the storage facility loan
program, you know, mostly government loans for grain bins.
The program has low-interest financing so that producers can
build and/or upgrade form storage. This was expanded in 2008 Farm
Bill. The department has been very slow in getting many of the Farm
Bill changes implemented, but this is one that ought to be relatively
simple because there's quite a history behind these programs, I'll
bet, going back to the 1930s's, at least the 1940's when we were
talking about grain bank.
The program's fully paid for and, obviously, in a time of high
unemployment, it would create real jobs in Iowa. And we know the
president's always talking about things that need to be done to
stimulate the economy, and this is exactly the type of spending that
would put people to work.
Go ahead and call the names.
STAFF: Tom Rider, WNAX?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, I understand there's a possibility there might be an
energy bill this week. Any idea what might be in it and when it might
be introduced?
GRASSLEY: Well, if there is an energy bill, it will be out of
the Energy Committee. And I don't know that there's going to be one.
But what is going to be the bill the Senate is going to work on is the
one that the Energy Committee puts together. Now, if you're asking me
if there's a bill out of the Energy Committee, it's moving a little
bit faster than I thought it would. Although, I think it's going to
be up sometime this spring.
And then as far as my Finance Committee is concerned, we will
probably put together some tax provisions that would go along with it
like, for instance, you know, the biodiesel credit expires at the end
of this year. It probably ought to be increased for five years, but
it might only be increased for one year because then it would put it
on the same timeline that the phase-out of the ethanol tax credit
would happen. And then we would extend all of them uniformly into the
future a certain number of years.
But things like that have to come up yet.
QUESTION: I understand Mr. Bingaman was expected to bring
something up this week. Is that...
GRASSLEY: No, no. Then I'll bet if you heard that, that's
probably true. I haven't had a discussion that I can verify that.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you, sir.
STAFF: Tom Steever, Brownfield?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator,
The Ag Committee is meeting today to talk about beyond federal
school meal programs. What do you expect to come out of that?
GRASSLEY: Well, we have an Iowan testifying, and I hope to be
there for part of it, but I've got, also, Judiciary and Finance. And
I'm ranking member in the Finance, so I may not get there.
But we're going to be going down the road of renewal of child
nutrition programs, and we're going to be probably possible expansion
of that program. And the hearings that have been conducted thus far
on nutrition is probably leading up to some legislation that we'll
have up sometime this summer.
QUESTION: To what effect?
GRASSLEY: Well, first of all, there is sunset of these programs.
And so they have to be reauthorized.
And there's considerable talk about some expansion of them. I
suppose mostly by reducing the guidelines by which people can
participate in the programs -- probably income guidelines -- and maybe
when it comes to school programs, you know, increasing reimbursement
for schools, particularly for equipment.
GRASSLEY: But also, we've been -- we've had people coming in
from Iowa that are involved with these programs, and they've talked in
terms of how the price of food's gone up, the cost has gone up but
that the state reimbursement for the programs and the delivery of the
program has not gone up.
And I think, also, some greater participation in commodity
programs.
STAFF: Ken Root, WHO?
QUESTION: Senator, I don't know your position on this. Perhaps,
you've already stated it. But in regards to the IRS requiring farmers
-- requiring farmers to sign a form saying that before they receive
any farm payment that the IRS will document whether or not they are
eligible. What's your view on that?
GRASSLEY: Well, my view on it is that you're going to have to
have some of that information for higher income people to make a
determination whether or not they are qualified and hit the income
limits. And so that information would have to come from the IRS, and
so that implied in the Farm Bill, and I voted for the Farm Bill, so
I'm, obviously, in support of that.
But that's not the same thing as violating the privacy of the
income tax forms. It would be just the USDA contacting the IRS and
saying is this farmer's income above or below this level. And if the
IRS says your income is above that level, then that's a determination
do you get farm payments or not.
The extent to which people are worried about the IRS seeing every
detail on their income tax, that's not an issue, and it need not be an
issue.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
STAFF: Dan Skelton, KICD?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Back to your statement about the storage facility loan program.
If it's fully authorized in the 2008 farm program and fully funded,
where is the hang up?
GRASSLEY: The hang up is just regulation. After you write a new
Farm Bill and the extent to which there might have been some changes
in a specific program -- I can't speak with a great deal of knowledge
on that without going back and reading the bill. But I assume that
the regulations that were under the old Farm Bill wouldn't be
applicable to the 2008 Farm Bill. And this is probably a lower
priority than a lot of -- a lot of other things like the safety net
for farmers.
QUESTION: And are you saying that loans are not being issued?
Or just not being issued fast enough?
GRASSLEY: Well, they can't -- they can't issue any -- they can't
implement the program till the regulations are out in regard to the
facility program.
STAFF: Gary Digiuseppe, Arkansas Radio Network?
QUESTION: I don't have anything. Thank you.
STAFF: OK. I've read through the list. Was anyone added late
or does anyone have a follow-up?
GRASSLEY: I better go back and ask if I was clear enough with
Ken Root on the income tax thing.
QUESTION: Well, yes, sir. There was one other area in that,
though. You were saying who would get that information. The form the
farmer signs, as I understand it, is then -- the farm service agency
takes that on the IRS and says is this farmer eligible. The IRS
doesn't send all the tax information to the farm service agency to
examine.
GRASSLEY: That's right. It just would say is your income over
this limit or under this -- or what your income is would determine
whether or not you were entitled to the farm program. They wouldn't
need to know how much you gave to church, how much you, you know,
spent on this or that.
There would be two classifications of income that they'd have to
know about. One would be their non-farm income. There's a separate
classification for making it ineligible there. And then income from
farming, and then the percentage of your income that might be from
farming.
But this would all be just one figure in each category. And I
think that it might imply that the IRS would take some lead because
the IRS would -- could flag likely participants who would exceed the
limits. And then the USDA would have an opportunity based upon that
information to go back and ask the individual farmer for more
information which maybe would get more specific than what I just told
you.
QUESTION: All right. Sir, I do have one other question on crop
insurance. The 2010 budget, do you believe there will be a rollback
in the government participation financially in crop insurance
subsidization?
GRASSLEY: Well, are you talking about the $350 million that was
in the Conrad amendment? It would come out of the -- it would come
out of the subsidy. I don't -- considering the total cost of the farm
program, I don't think $350 million is going to make a difference in
the participation of the program.
And let me say that I believe the only reason that amendment was
offered by Conrad was because he did not want me to offer my amendment
on the $250,000 cap, and even though my amendment was defeated, I
think he wanted to show he could save money in agriculture as well.
And, you know, crop insurance has been kind of an easy target. I'm
kind of surprised there wasn't more money taken out of it last year
than was taken out in the Farm Bill. And it was a big part of the
savings in the Farm Bill.
And I suppose that this is just a kind of a continuation of that.
But, you know, most of these insurance companies are located in the
state of Iowa, and I think it was taking a whack at me in the process
of his not wanting me to bring up my amendment.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: Senator, this is Dan at Spencer.
GRASSLEY: Yes?
QUESTION: The American Farm Bureau currently has written a
letter to the Labor Department opposing changes in the H-2A temporary
worker program. Are you particular with those proposed changes?
What's your position on that?
GRASSLEY: Who wrote the letter?
QUESTION: American Farm Bureau Federation.
GRASSLEY: Well, I assume -- I have to -- H-2A, I don't have my
immigration person with me. She's just getting back from pregnancy
leave. But let me say this. And I'll bet if the Farm Bureau
Federation offered it, it would be along the lines of the Chambliss
legislation for agricultural workers because I think that's the H-2A
category.
And what -- basically there, it would provide for people to come
to this country to do agriculture labor and, for a short period of
time, with the emphasis of having to return and maybe the ability to
come back here at least one, two, or three times. I mean, maybe two,
three, or four time to come back legally without going through the
process again.
GRASSLEY: And it's not a whole lot different than the Feinstein
bill, but the Feinstein bill effecting H-2B had in it amnesty for
people that had come here illegally to be farm laborers. And that was
at the behest of the agricultural unions and I suppose people of --
advocates for Hispanics that have come here illegally to legalize
them.
Otherwise, the purpose would be -- of the two bills would be the
same. But I tend to support the Chambliss legislation over the
Feinstein legislation because I can't, you know, I can't advocate
amnesty because that's saying it's OK to violate law.
QUESTION: Thank you.
GRASSLEY: OK. Anybody else want it jump in?
OK. Thank you all very much. Goodbye.