Chuck Grassley: “Now, what has the other side had to offer as an alternative to the Republican plan? Most often, although not totally, we…”

“Now, what has the other side had to offer as an alternative to the Republican plan? Most often, although not totally, we hear about a 1-year extension of the current program. To me, this idea has several problems. An extension of the current program ignores the reforms that have been made and that farmers have now come to expect. The farmers in my State want, they expect, and they deserve the regulatory relief provided by the Republican farm bill provisions. Furthermore, an extension would literally deprive rural America of billions of dollars. First, a 1-year extension would require farmers to pay back money they have already received as advance deficiency payments. Many of the farmers in Iowa had very poor crops this year due to heavy rain during the planting season. Particularly that is true of southern Iowa, northern Missouri, and western central Illinois. Yet by a 1-year extension, people are suggesting that they would force these farmers to write checks to the Treasury to pay back their advance deficiency payment. It is estimated that these provisions would cost farmers more than $2.1 billion nationwide and, in my State of Iowa, $217 million. Second, any delay in passing a new farm bill could have a devastating effect on future farm programs. This is due to the Congressional Budget Office's baseline revision that continually shows that Congress will have less money to spend on farm programs in the future.”