GRASSLEY: I want to comment on a few issues. First, permanent disaster programs or acronym SURE -- S-U-R-E -- was rolled out by the Farm Services Administration (sic) (inaudible) last month. I know there have been some hiccups in the early going. There's no doubt it's going to be a complicated program.
One issue in particular that I've gotten a lot of phone calls on is how hay is being valued in the revenue calculation portion of the formula. We've been relaying these concerns to FFA here in Washington and are working to get these issues resolved.
Additionally, we've heard about highlights of the second draft of the crop insurance standard reinsurance agreement, SRA. Based on general themes that the Department of Agriculture has told us about, I've got some additional concerns that are bothering me.
I'm still concerned that the overall value of the cuts is $6.9 billion, the new cap on agents' commissions and the lock-in ten-year reference prices. But the USDA has moved in the right direction somewhat on a few issues like quota share, a phase-in of the administrative and operating changes, and group risk pools.
The companies have 30 days to comment on this second draft, and I'll be working with my Senate colleagues on any assistance we can provide from a legislative standpoint.
This week, we're celebrating National FFA Week. FFA provides an opportunity for young people to grow through agriculture education. I appreciate the leadership of this organization in encouraging young people to get involved.
Dan Looker?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
I did read your release about the jobs bill. I had a question about how this affects the biodiesel tax credit. Do you see another vehicle for getting that through the Senate, or do you see some chance of it being added in when the -- when and if the bill goes to conference with the House? I believe the House did pass the biodiesel tax credit extension, right?
GRASSLEY: Well, that's a possibility that it could go to conference and that be included. But there's two or three opportunities down the road. We're going to have an energy bill that will have some tax provisions in it.
It could be added at that point, particularly because of the biodiesel provisions. It would be very germane.
And then the other one would be the estate tax bill.
QUESTION: And how long would it be before either of those opportunities come up?
GRASSLEY: I don't know. But I would expect energy to be up sooner than later. Estate tax, I don't know. We have -- we're working to get a substance of a bipartisan agreement, but we haven't reached it yet.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: Tom Rider?
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
Senator, President Obama is trying to push that health-care plan through and has apparently made a few changes to it. Is there anything in it that you support, or do you have several concerns about it yet?
GRASSLEY: Well, I've got concern on process. It kind of bothers me that the president asked for bipartisan conference, perfectly legitimate to do. It's a good thing to do. There's not enough bipartisanship in Washington.
But the substance of the bipartisanship is very, very important. And I think it's kind of counterintuitive for them to put a bill out and say that they're going to take things of ours into consideration because the views of Iowans that I've heard at my town meetings are, more or less, that we ought to start over and do things more incrementally.
And so I don't know quite what the motive is. It sounds inconsistent to put out a bill that you consider a compromise and then want -- want to know what Republicans want to do because we're not talking about just adding a few things to their bill. There's a lot of things that are wrong with the bill that increases taxes, increases premiums, takes a half a billion out of Medicare, half a billion of new taxes. It doesn't do anything about inflation of health care and institutes a process for rationing health care.
A lot of people in Iowa don't consider this reform. They consider reform, you know, keeping premiums where they are or down. And they don't see sensibility of taking a lot of money out of Medicare to set up a new entitlement program where Medicare is already in trouble.
QUESTION: I take it you don't see anything good in it for agriculture either, sir?
GRASSLEY: Well, you didn't ask me about agriculture but health care for farmers is probably a bigger problem than it is for a lot of other people in our economy for the simple reason that most of them have individual policies. And individual policies is where you get the big tax increase.
And there's no doubt that CBO, Congressional Budget Office, makes very clear that the bill that passed the Senate last year increases premiums, particularly individual premiums. And then in the end, that's going to hurt farmers, make it more expensive to have health insurance if you can afford it at all.
And so you get back to what people kind of expect us to do. I think start over would be the thing to do and do things more incrementally step by step.
Gene Lucht?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator.
On the estate-tax issue, what are the biggest challenges in your negotiations right now? Are we talking the tax rates, or what are the biggest hurdles you have in doing this negotiation?
GRASSLEY: Well, in the bipartisan negotiations, I'm not so sure that there's a lot of disagreement. I think it's $5 million stepped-up basis and 30 percent -- 35 percent tax rate. I was -- if I said 30 percent, we want it to be equivalent to the highest individual rate under the principle that, while you're living and earning money, you pay 35 percent. Why would you pay more when you die? And stepped-up basis, 35, 5 million.
I think we can get a bipartisan agreement to move that. Now, will we have the votes to get 60 to get it through the Senate? I'm not sure that we have that at this point. So it's not a matter of substance so much.
And then when you get to compromising with the House of Representatives, you know, it could end up somewhere between three and a half million, 45 rate and the 5 million with the 35 percent rate.
And who knows what those compromises would come out. So all that's really predictable is what the House has already done -- you don't have to predict that -- and what we think we can get done in the United States Senate. And we think we can get 5 million with a 35 percent rate.
Now, we're ready to go on to Tom Steever.
Chris Clayton?
Stacie Cudd?
Now, to the Des Moines Register, Philip?
QUESTION: Yes, Senator.
Could you address Administrator Jackson -- Lisa Jackson sent a letter to the Democrats in the Senate from Rockefeller and those who had expressed concerns about the regulation of green-house gases and with new timetables and the 25,000-ton threshold was actually going to be significantly higher.
What do you -- what do you make of that? What do you think of it? And what is this -- what do you think the future of the Murkowski amendment is at this point?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think this response would be realization of two things. Number one that maybe Murkowski's resolution is a threat. I hope it is a threat. And maybe to keep the threat minimized, they're trying to satisfy people in the Southeast United States or -- where they generate a lot from electricity or where you actually generate a lot of coal from -- electricity from coal, I should say.
And then, of course, West Virginia, where there's a lot of mining of coal and jobs being in jeopardy, maybe trying to just satisfy enough Democrats to get us -- to get them over a hurdle that Lisa Murkowski's resolution would not pass.
But I think a bigger concern of theirs ought to be what Chairman Skelton and Chairman Peterson -- they want to take away EPA's authority to even do what the Supreme Court said they could do, which most of us say is a misinterpretation of the 1990 Clean Air Act that the EPA can regulate CO2.
OK. Any follow-ups, anybody? I've gone through the entire list. Is there anybody I forgot to mention, jump in now.
QUESTION: Well, Senator, just a follow-up on my question. Do you think what they said to Rockefeller and the others yesterday will hurt the chances of Murkowski passing?
GRASSLEY: Well, I think when you look back to why didn't the United States go along with the Kyoto Treaty, there was a resolution, 95 to 0, and just think of all Democrats that voted for it. Now, a lot of those Democrats aren't here or changed their mind in that period of time.
But you've still got the Rockefellers and the Byrds to deal with, and there's problems in the Midwest that gets a lot of support. So I don't know what the outcome is, but it's surely trying to minimize the impact on some of these states with hopeful -- that they will turn things around and not lose a lot of Democrat votes.
OK. Anybody else? OK. Thank you all very much.
END