WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today made a request to the leadership of the Senate Agriculture Committee that Iowa host a field hearing to discuss the next farm bill.

In his letter to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow and Ranking Member Pat Roberts, Grassley said that Iowa is one of the leading states in producing a number of agricultural products and that the state lies in the heart of the farm belt.  Iowa is the number one producer of corn, soybeans, pork, and eggs.

“Iowa agriculture is crucial to the health of the economy of the state, and supports thousands of non-farm jobs around the state,” Grassley said.  “In addition, the committee has a history of conducting field hearings in Iowa as it considers farm bill legislation.”

Here is a copy of the text of the letter.

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow
Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture 
Nutrition and Forestry
Russell Senate Office Building 328A
Washington, D.C. 205 10-6000

The Honorable Pat Roberts
Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture
Nutrition and Forestry
Russell Senate Office Building 328A
Washington, D.C. 20510-6000

Dear Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts:

I appreciate your leadership in moving the committee forward in considering the upcoming farm bill. The hearings held so far have provided very insightful information, and I am looking forward to upcoming discussions.

As you consider future committee hearings, I urge you to conduct a field hearing in my home state of Iowa.  Iowa is one of the leading states in producing a number of agricultural products.  It lies in the heart of the farm belt and is home to some of the most innovative and dynamic agriculture businesses in the world. In addition, there are countless examples throughout the state which highlight the tremendous work accomplished through rural development programs. Consequently, the committee has a history of conducting field hearings in Iowa as it considers farm bill legislation.

The policies set in the next farm bill have a tremendous impact on not only farmers, but all Iowans, as there are thousands of non-farm jobs supported by agriculture. Conducting a field hearing in Iowa will give the committee a tremendous opportunity to hear from farmers, rural Americans, companies leading the way in agriculture innovation, and other citizens impacted by farm bill programs.

You have recently received a letter from Iowa Governor Terry Branstad and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey extending an invitation for the committee to have a hearing in Iowa, and they have graciously offered to assist in hosting the hearing. I join them in inviting you to schedule a hearing in Iowa, and I urge you to take them up on their offer to assist in hosting the hearing.

Sincerely,

Q.  What is the Rural America Preservation Act?

A.  The Rural America Preservation Act is legislation I’ve sponsored to help restore the government farm program to its original intent by making sure program payments are targeted at small- and medium-sized farmers who need assistance getting through tough economic times that are due to circumstances beyond a farmer’s control.  I introduced the bill with Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota.  The legislation would limit the total amount of farm-program payments that a single farmer could receive to $125,000.  The payment-limit breakdown for an individual farmer would be 1) a cap of $20,000 on direct payments, which are based on a farmer’s acres and yields, as well as a set payment rate; 2)  a cap of $30,000 on counter-cyclical payments, which are available to farmers when the market price of the commodity they produce is less than a target price set by the federal government; and 3) a cap of $75,000 total on gains a farmer can receive from repaying a marketing assistance loan, loan deficiency payments, and gains realized from the use of a commodity certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

Our bipartisan bill also would close a loophole that some non-farmers have exploited to improperly receive farm payments.  It does so by narrowing the guidelines used to define who is considered actively engaged in farming.  The evidence of non-farmers’ abusing this loophole is astounding.  Both the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Payment Limit Commission have pinpointed this as a critical area of concern.  Closing this eligibility loophole is important to maintaining support from non-farm state members of Congress for the farm program.  In order to help alleviate this problem, the bill would create a measurable standard of active, personal labor and management for the Department of Agriculture to use in determining if people requesting farm program payments are indeed farmers, or if they are just trying to game the system.

Q.  Why are these changes necessary?  

A.  To ensure that farmers are able to provide a safe, affordable and abundant food supply, it’s important to get the farm safety net back to its original intent.  The federal farm programs were meant to help small- and medium-sized farmers weather the bumps associated with farming.  The importance of providing a food supply is clear at every family’s dinner table.  Without a reliable and affordable food supply, desperation results.  If a mom or a dad wasn’t able to feed their kids for three days, they would do just about anything to feed them.  If we lose the safety net that allows family farmers to weather the storm, then that safe, affordable and abundant food supply might just go away.  To keep this safety net in place, we need to change the way farm program payments are distributed.  Unfortunately, under current policies 10 percent of the biggest farmers in the U.S. receive more than 70 percent of farm payments, and some payments go to non-farmers.  If left as is, the distribution system that pays out the lion’s share of federal dollars to the largest and wealthiest farming operations will spell the beginning of the end of the farm safety net.

The trend in farm program payments going to big farmers also has a negative impact on the next generation of farmers.  We need to keep young people in farming, so they’re ready to take the lead when the older generation of farmers turn over the reins.  When 70 percent of farm payments go to 10 percent of farmers, it puts upward pressure on land prices and cash-rent arrangements, making it a lot harder for smaller and beginning farmers to buy ground or afford to rent land.  This makes it difficult to get a foothold in farming and leads to big farmers getting even bigger.

It’s time to enact legitimate, reasonable farm program payment limits that tighten eligibility requirements and help those that the farm program was created for in the first place.  The Grassley-Johnson bill would go a long way toward getting the farm program refocused on providing needed assistance to small- and medium-sized farmers.

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, with Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and 26 other senators, is urging the top U.S. trade official to work to lift Russian trade barriers to U.S. pork products.

“Russia’s unjustified position against U.S. pork has blocked products from plants that account for 60 percent of U.S. pork production capacity,” Grassley said.  “Russia wants to join the World Trade Organization.  One of the issues Russia needs to address before joining is its unwarranted barriers to U.S. pork.”

The Grassley-Nelson letter to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk outlines two major barriers from Russia to U.S. pork.  The first is Russia’s unilateral lowering of the amount of U.S. pork it allows to be imported, cutting the previously agreed-upon amount by about half.  The second is Russia’s use of sanitary restrictions to limit U.S. pork exports to Russia.  The Russian restrictions are not supported by science or valid risk assessments.

The letter urges the trade representative to work toward encouraging Russia to ease the unwarranted restrictions and abide by commitments as a precursor to joining the World Trade Organization. The United States was able to obtain commitments from China and Vietnam to overcome similar obstacles as part of those countries’ accession to the World Trade Organization.  Twenty-five percent of all U.S. pork is produced in Iowa. 

Grassley is a member of the Agriculture Committee and former chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Finance, with jurisdiction over international trade.  Signing the bipartisan letter include the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.

The letter follows a similar letter that Grassley hand-delivered to top Russian officials on a trip to Russia last month.  The text of the latest letter is available here.

-30-