Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on a new report from the Congressional Budget Office showing that the new health care will damage economic growth.  The report is available here.

"You can read dozens of analyses of the health care law, and some are clearly biased.  The Congressional Budget Office is the independent authority turned to by Congress.  According to CBO, the law will hurt economic growth, cause the loss of 2.5 million jobs, and add $1 trillion to the deficit.  No doubt, too many people lacked health insurance before Obamacare and needed help.  But Obamacare upends a big part of the economy while trying to achieve its goals.  Congress and the President should abandon Obamacare.  We ought to help the uninsured without disrupting jobs and adding debt."

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

"Privacy in the Digital Age: Preventing Data Breaches and Combating Cybercrime"

Tuesday, February 4, 2014.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing to examine the well-publicized recent commercial data breaches.  We're still learning all the details, but it's clear these and other breaches have potentially impacted millions of consumers nationwide.

Today we have the opportunity to learn about the challenges that both industry and law enforcement face in combatting cyber-attacks from well organized criminals. The witnesses have a unique ability to provide us various important perspectives as we consider the government's role in securing sensitive data and crafting a breach notification standard.

I hope to learn where the committee's expertise could be helpful in combatting future attacks.   Furthermore, I'd like to use this hearing to explore areas of common ground, so we can determine what might be accomplished quickly.

In most cases, thankfully, businesses are able to prevent the relentless attacks against their networks.  This is due to comprehensive security programs coupled with law enforcement's diligent work.  However, the data breaches at Target and Neiman Marcus demonstrate that even companies with vast resources can suffer serious attacks with the potential to harm their customers.

One defensive tool that's been discussed is updating payment card technology.  Retailers and card issuers are preparing to transition away from decades-old technology.  This is a positive step in the right direction.  However, it's a bit troubling that it's taken so long to implement this technology.  Many fraudulent transactions might have been prevented had this occurred already.  But this alone won't provide complete security, as I'm sure we'll hear today.

Criminal hackers aren't quitters.  They continue to find ways to break into company networks.  As the Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned, attacks like those recently suffered will continue.  So companies must be vigilant in defending their systems, as well as in taking steps after an attack to warn customers and limit the damage.

Unfortunately, it may be days, weeks, or months before a business realizes it's been attacked.  And if a hacker can breach a large business's security system, then it's obvious that smaller businesses are threatened as well.  It's important we remain mindful of the differences in businesses and the resources they have available as we go forward.

It's been a couple of years since the committee last considered data security legislation.  In that time, we've learned a lot about this subject thanks to the broader cybersecurity conversation.  The proposals offered by the administration and Congress, along with other government initiatives, can be helpful for us as we consider how to proceed on legislation.

Currently, there are at least four pieces of data security and breach notification legislation in the Senate, with possibly more to come as other committees begin their work.  While these bills would establish national security standards, they take different approaches.  This offers us the chance to examine the effects of each, which is a good thing.

In the past, I've expressed concern with approaches that don't provide businesses the flexibility they need to secure their data.  We must avoid creating a one-size-fits-all security requirement, particularly if it fails to account for businesses of different sizes and resources.   An inflexible approach could lead to businesses focusing on merely completing a checklist of requirements in order to avoid liability, instead of doing what makes sense to secure customer information in their particular circumstances.

On this point, I hope to learn how the government can better partner with the private sector and law enforcement to strengthen data security.  The government has a strong interest to work together with industry, given the impact cyber-attacks have on the nation's economy.

Fostering a greater public-private approach to cybersecurity was recognized in last year's Executive Order from the President on Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.  The Executive Order stated that strengthening cybersecurity can be achieved through government partnership with private business.

As a result of the Executive Order, we should review the National Institute of Standards and Technology ongoing partnership with owners of critical infrastructure.  This partnership will create standards, guidelines, and best practices for businesses to implement on a voluntary basis. 

There's already bipartisan support for this approach. Senators Rockefeller and Thune have introduced a bill to enshrine the National Institute of Standards and Technology role in creating a cybersecurity framework.  This is just one model for government action focused on securing critical infrastructure.  It's worth considering how this approach might work in this particular context.

The recent breaches also draw attention to the need for a uniform, federal notification standard.  There's been little suggestion that the public failed to receive news about these recent breaches.  However, we once again see the difficulties faced with a patchwork of state laws.  Companies must ensure compliance, while also investigating ongoing threats.

I've supported creating a federal notification standard to replace the laws in 46 states and the District of Columbia.  It makes sense.  If done correctly, it would ease compliance costs for businesses, particularly since the current laws are ever changing.  A federal standard would also ensure consumers are notified of breaches that could result in financial harm or identity theft. 

But if the standard for notification is crafted too broadly or the penalties for failure to notify are too harsh, there's a risk for consumer over-notification.  Businesses may choose to issue notice of even trivial breaches.  Just as there's a potential for harm when a victim is not notified of a breach, over-notification can lead to harm or apathy.

Further, a notification law must recognize the resources available to different businesses.  While companies like those before us today were quickly able to comply with existing law, many smaller businesses would face a more difficult experience.

There's widespread support for a national breach notification standard.  As a result, we should ask whether it's appropriate to separate this issue from other aspects of the ongoing data security debate.  This might provide the chance to take action quickly, as we continue work on other issues.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.  I look forward to exploring these issues and working with you and others.

-30-

This week negotiations on the farm bill came to a close.  After two years, the House of Representatives passed the bill on Wednesday by a vote of 251 to 166.  When the bill comes up for a vote in the Senate, I will be voting against it.

The country needs good farm policy that provides a limited safety net to ensure small and medium sized farms have the resources to weather the uncontrollable risks they face every year.  The farm program must also be defensible to the American taxpayer.  As a farmer, a citizen and a legislator, I believe it is wrong to expect or allow the government to give unlimited support to any farm.  The $17 trillion debt is real, and we need to treat it as such.

The individual Senate- and House- passed farm and nutrition bills included nearly identical provisions that I championed that would have placed a hard cap on farm payments and accurately define a farmer.  My efforts stem from a need to get the farm program back to its original intent.  Currently 10 percent of the wealthiest farmers receive 70 percent of the benefit from the farm program.  This puts those small- and medium-sized farms and young and beginning farmers at a disadvantage.  These are the very people the farm program is supposed to help.  The committee leaders negotiating the final bill struck my simple, common-sense and enforceable provisions from the final bill.  And, $387 million in savings are no longer realized.

Don't get me wrong, there are some positives in the bill.  The crop insurance program remains in place to help farmers manage their own risk and the dairy program ended up better than where we started. But, this bill is a missed opportunity for true reform.  A few people put parochial interests ahead of agriculture as a whole.  Voting yes on this bill would be an endorsement of the egregious manipulation of my payment limit reforms behind closed doors.  I cannot in good conscience do that.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today won approval of several provisions that would ensure tougher sentences on perpetrators of sexual assaults and domestic violence, as well as arms suppliers of terrorists.

Grassley's amendments were adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee during the committee's consideration of the "Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013."

"Sexual abuse and domestic assault are some of the most heinous crimes.  These are areas where mandatory minimum sentences are very much needed.  I'm very concerned that the absence of mandatory minimum sentences is causing serious problems in deterring these terrible acts," Grassley said.  "The absence of mandatory minimums plays a key role in giving sex offenders an incentive to go to trial which in turn gives judges discretion to give sentences as low as probation to convicted sexual assault offenders.  This is an appalling practice that needs to be stopped."

Grassley's first amendment was adopted by a vote of 15-3 and would impose mandatory minimum sentences for various sexual abuse offenses.

Grassley's second amendment was adopted by a vote of 15-3 and would impose a mandatory minimum sentence where death occurs as a result of the commission of the crime of interstate domestic violence.

Grassley's third amendment that was adopted by voice vote enacts a mandatory minimum sentence for defendants convicted of willfully providing armaments, war materials and other goods and services to State sponsors of international terrorism or specially designated foreign terrorists and proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, as well as for defendants convicted of willfully and illegally exporting goods and services in connection with a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons program or a missile program.

"The export control laws are vital to national security.  Their criminal provisions help keep rogue nations and terrorist groups from gaining access to various technologies that could inflict catastrophic damage," Grassley said.  "The administration has been clear that federal judges regularly abuse their discretion in imposing sentences that fail to reflect the importance of these cases."

The final bill cleared the committee by a vote of 13-5 and will now be sent to the full Senate for consideration.

-30-

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing on "Oversight of the Department of Justice"

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's oversight hearing focusing on the Justice Department.  I welcome Attorney General Holder.  There are many issues to discuss about the department's ongoing and important work.

I have to start by pointing out to the Chairman that we still haven't received answers to our questions for the record from the last oversight hearing with the Attorney General almost eleven months ago.  This is simply unacceptable.  The department should show sufficient respect for this committee to answer its questions?AT LEAST prior to its next oversight hearing. We also haven't received replies to questions directed to other department officials who testified at various hearings over the past year.

Mr. Attorney General, this hearing also affords me the opportunity to call to your attention the many letters the department hasn't yet answered.  It is unfortunate that we always have to start department oversight hearings with this same request to respond to unanswered questions from Congress.

For instance, back in early November I wrote you about the Justice Department's counsel to Health and Human Services on the Affordable Care Act.  HHS says that in consultation with your department, it's decided not to apply the anti-kickback statute to the Affordable Care Act.  This is a clear violation of Congress's move to strengthen anti-fraud laws.  Since I haven't received an answer to my letter, I'll ask you about this today.

I've also written you about the department's handling of cases in which National Security Agency employees abused their signals intelligence authorities.

In August, after news reports about these cases, I wrote to the NSA Inspector General about them.  In response, the Inspector General indicated that since 2003, there were twelve documented instances of NSA employees abusing these authorities, in many cases by spying on loved ones.  It's good the number of cases was small, but even one case is too many.  According to the Inspector General, at least six of these cases were referred to your department for prosecution.

In October, I wrote to you to request information about how the department handled these cases.  I asked for a response by December 1st.  I haven't received one.

It's important for the public to know whether the department is taking these cases seriously.  We need to deter this kind of behavior in the future, given the NSA's powerful capabilities.

In addition, this committee has spent a considerable amount of time over the past six months considering various reforms to the NSA.  In his speech on this a few weeks ago, the President directed you to work with the intelligence community to develop "options for a new approach" to the bulk collection of telephone metadata.  I'll be interested in hearing how you are proceeding with this task.

The President has also asked you to do a review of the FBI's whistleblower protections and recommend changes on how to improve them.  The assignment was contained in Presidential Policy Directive 19, which claimed to create protections for whistleblowers with access to classified information.  The President gave you 180 days to complete the review, and it's now ten months overdue.  There is a lot of lip service to whistleblower protection, but this is another example of how the actions don't match the rhetoric.

I'm concerned about the President's Directive. I recently had a whistleblower from the Central Intelligence Agency contact my office.  He was seeking to report alleged violations of the whistleblower protections in the President's Directive, false statements to Congress, and concerns related to qui tam litigation.  He tried to get permission to share the classified details with me.  Yet a CIA lawyer wrote a letter denying permission, claiming Judiciary Committee members aren't authorized to receive classified information about the CIA?which is of course false.  But it scares whistleblowers and intimidates them into silence.  This is one of several things that suggests to me that even with the President's Directive, we need stronger legislative protections for national security whistleblowers.

Another topic I'd like to discuss is the department's non-enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act.  In August, the department announced that it wouldn't challenge laws in Colorado and Washington that legalize the trafficking of marijuana.

The department apparently believed that so long as these states created effective regulatory schemes, key federal enforcement priorities wouldn't be undermined.  Those priorities include the diversion of marijuana into other states, increased use among minors, and more drugged driving fatalities.

However, I am concerned that in many ways this policy is based on willful ignorance of the realities in these states.  For example, as a result of its failure to adequately regulate medical marijuana, Colorado has seen a sharp increase in public health and law enforcement problems related to these federal priorities over the past few years.  Just a few weeks ago, a senior Drug Enforcement Administration official told the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control that what was happening in these states is "reckless and irresponsible."

At a minimum, it's important that the department set firm criteria to measure whether - or when - its federal priorities are harmed so much that the decision not to challenge these state laws is revisited.

This is all the more important now that I  understand you will soon announce additional guidance that will permit marijuana distributors in these states to use the banking system to engage in what is, under federal law, money laundering.

I'm also concerned that this Administration hasn't been faithful to the Constitution in a number of other areas by unilaterally changing or ignoring laws passed by Congress.  In my view, many of these actions are inconsistent with the Constitution's requirement that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

However, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel should provide an independent check on the executive's actions.  The Office of Legal Counsel is responsible for advising the executive branch on constitutional questions.  Moreover, it reviews the constitutionality of all proposed Executive Orders.

Last night during the State of the Union address, the President signaled that he will use Executive Orders aggressively to advance his agenda this year.  Transparency should be brought to the Office of Legal Counsel's analysis of proposed Executive Orders, so that the American people can see whether they are subjected to a rigorous constitutional review.

I look forward to discussing these and a variety of other issues, time permitting.  Thank you.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Senator Chuck Grassley made the following statement after seeing text of provisions he championed in the farm and nutrition bill.

"It appears the payment limit and actively engaged reforms, which Congress overwhelming approved, have been watered down to the point they will likely have little to no effect.  It's bad for agriculture, it's bad for taxpayers who are worried about the debt, it's bad for our credibility with trading partners, and it's bad for the future of farm programs.

"Getting the farm program back to its original intent was supported by a majority of both the House and the Senate.  It's one of the few areas where Republicans and Democrats have come together.  Yet, a select few are allowing the farm program to be exploited by putting wealthy, so-called farmers ahead of small- and medium-sized farms and young and beginning farmers.  This is an example of why Congress has a 12 percent approval rating."

Q:        What are the federal service academies?

A: The United States has five federal service academies:  the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.; the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.; the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo.; the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, N.Y.; and, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn.  These elite institutions of higher learning educate and train the nation's next generation of military leaders.  Graduates of the service academies earn college degrees and receive a commission as an officer in one of the five branches of the armed forces, which include the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.  Not long after the Revolutionary War, the United States Military Academy was founded on March 16, 1802, to develop leaders who reflect the values of "duty, honor, country" in service to their country as career officers in the army.  Each of the academies provides academic and technical training for graduates to serve, succeed and lead in their commissioned assignments and professional careers.

Q:        Who is eligible to attend a service academy?

A:        The highly competitive selection process is open to U.S. citizens ages 17 to 23.  Typically, interested high school students who are juniors in high school begin the nominations process during their spring semester.  Candidates must receive an authorized nomination from either the Vice President or a member of Congress or via a military service- connected nomination.  Representing Iowa in the U.S. Senate, I have the opportunity each year to make nominations for a select few service academy placements.  The Air Force, Military, and Naval service academies each select at least one qualified student from my nominations.  The Merchant Marine Academy makes selections in proportion to each state's representation in Congress.  The U.S. Coast Guard does not require a congressional nomination.  Those who receive an appointment would serve among a prestigious corps of young men and women from across the United States.  For generations the nation's service academies have earned a reputation of excellence, drawing upon a highly motivated talent pool that includes the best and brightest among America's youngest generation of leaders.  The nominating process vets candidates based upon the highest standards of excellence and personal achievement, including outstanding moral character, scholarship, leadership, physical aptitude and community service.  Upon graduation, alumni serve in the active or reserve components of the military, the Merchant Marine or the U.S. Coast Guard for a minimum of five years.  For example, a graduate of the U.S. Military Service Academy serves five years of active duty and three years in the reserves.  This service obligation reflects the nation's return on a fully funded, four-year, top-ranked college education.  

 

Q:        What criteria do you take into account during the nominations process?

A:        Applicants should rank at least in the top half of their high school class in a college preparatory curriculum.  Candidates should have ACT scores in the 25-36 range in math and science, and in the 22-36 range in English.  They should have extensive extracurricular activities, such as participation in school clubs, academic or athletic teams, community activities, volunteer service or work experience.  Applicants must be legal residents of Iowa or dependents of members of the military who are legal residents of Iowa.  Applicants must be unmarried with no children or legal obligation for a child, and at least 17 years of age but not past their 23rd birthday on July 1, 2015. 

Q:        How can interested Iowans apply for your nomination?

A:        Every year an impressive corps of student leaders and young scholar-athletes from across Iowa answers the call to serve their country by applying to a service academy.  It's difficult to choose from among the highly qualified and self-motivated candidates who apply.  The nominees are outstanding representatives for our home state.  Interested students should complete and submit the form located on my website at http://www.grassley.senate.gov/students/academy_nominations.cfm.  Note the following materials also are required:  four letters of recommendation from Iowans - one must be from the applicant's high school guidance counselor and one must be from a teacher; the applicant's ACT scores; and, the applicant's high school transcript. Applications for the 2015-2016 school year must be submitted to my Cedar Rapids office by October 1, 2014.  Nominations will be made by February 2015.  Appointments will be announced when they are offered by the academies. 

Friday, January 24, 2014

Investor protections, broker expungement rate, FINRA response

WASHINGTON, DC - In an effort to protect investors and the integrity of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (FINRA) BrokerCheck program, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a bipartisan letter last month asking FINRA to clarify and strengthen standards for expungement of investor complaints against brokers.  After receiving a written response from FINRA and a follow up meeting this week with staff from the offices of Senators Reed and Grassley and FINRA officials, the senators today issued the following joint statement:

"FINRA was responsive to our inquiry and it appears the organization is taking this problem seriously.  We will continue to follow up and work closely with  FINRA to ensure that it follows through on its commitment to improve the expungement system.  It is important for consumers to have the unvarnished information they need.  We hope FINRA will take a direct role in making sure this happens."

FINRA's written reply is available here.  

-end-

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review the conditions that have led to propane cost spikes in Iowa. 

"The recent propane supply shortage and price increases are causing hardship for the many rural Iowa families that use propane to heat their homes," Grassley said. "I'm asking the agency that oversees business practices to look at the propane situation and see whether the price increases are legitimate or manipulated in any way to consumers' detriment." 

In the meantime, Grassley encouraged anyone who may be eligible for federal heating assistance to contact the Iowa Bureau of Energy Assistance for more information.

Grassley's letter to the FTC is available here.  The text is copied below.

January 23, 2014


The Honorable Edith Ramirez
Chairwoman, Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580

Dear Chairwoman Ramirez:

I am writing to inquire about the Federal Trade Commission's oversight of the propane market in the Midwest.

In recent days, the Midwest spot price of propane at Conway, Kansas, has spiked far above the Gulf Coast spot price at Mont Belvieu, Texas.  I recognize that in the fall, the demand for propane to dry the large, wet corn harvest was significant.  In addition, the Midwest has experienced increased demand for propane due to the current cold weather.  However, the price for propane at Conway has surpassed the spot price in Mont Belvieu by as much as several dollars.  Many of my constituents have questioned this considerable price differential.  Moreover, in just the past few days, the spot price for propane in the Midwest has doubled.

I request that the Federal Trade Commission remain vigilant in overseeing the propane market to prevent possible anti-competitive behavior or illegal manipulation, and to ensure that any supply shortages are not created artificially.  I look forward to hearing the results of your review of the propane market in the Midwest.

Sincerely,


Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator                       


Cc:          The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General of the United States

The Honorable Ernest Moniz
Secretary of Energy

The Honorable Mark Wetjen
Acting Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission

-30-

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin today were among a bipartisan group of 31 Senators who sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy. The letter is part of an ongoing effort to urge the agency to make changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 2014 rule.  The Senators share concerns that the EPA's proposed rule will discourage investment and hurt job growth and rural communities across the country.  

   

"The EPA is proposing a major step that reverses the momentum on biofuels," said Grassley. "The progress made toward energy diversity and independence will slip away if the EPA succeeds.  The sentiment from almost one-third of the U.S. Senate is the proposal needs revision. We want the EPA to reconsider.  The President as a supporter of biofuels should weigh in as needed."    

   

"The intent of the RFS is to steadily increase contributions from biofuels in our transportation fuels markets to enhance our nation's energy security, protect the environment, and create jobs," said Harkin. "The proposed rule, requiring less biofuel in 2014 than in 2013, goes against this intent and is a significant step backward."  

   

The EPA's proposed rule would set the biodiesel target at 1.28 billion gallons, which is below current industry production levels of around 1.7 billion gallons.  It would also reduce the total biofuels target to 15.2 billion gallons.  This is 1.34 billion gallons below the 2013 target of 16.55 billion gallons, and almost 3 billion gallons below the 2014 statutory target of 18.15 billion gallons. 

The following Senators also signed on to the letter: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Max Baucus (D-MT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Al Franken (D-MN), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), John Hoeven (R-ND), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mark Udall (D-CO), Ed Markey (D-MA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), John Thune (R-SD), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

The full text of the letter is below:

January 22, 2014

The Honorable Gina McCarthy

EPA Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

We are writing to share serious concerns regarding the EPA's proposal for the 2014 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS.) Congress passed the RFS to increase the amount of renewable fuel utilized in our nation's fuel supply. The Administration's proposal is a significant step backward - undermining the goal of increasing biofuels production as a domestic alternative to foreign oil consumption. Further, the proposed waiver places at risk both the environmental benefits from ongoing development of advanced biofuels and rural America's economic future. We urge you to modify your proposal.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) provides the EPA with significant authority to adjust to shifting conditions over the 15-year life of the policy. In any given year, EPA can adjust the advanced biofuel and total biofuel volumes based on anticipated production. While EPA has used the authority to adjust biofuels levels in the past based on anticipated production levels, your proposal, for the first time, adjusts the 2014 overall volumes based on criteria not clearly identified in the law below anticipated production levels of biofuels and even below previous years' RFS levels. 

Further, defining the "blend wall" as blends of E10 and then waiving RFS requirements beyond the blend wall creates significant barriers to future biofuels growth. Lack of infrastructure remains one of the key hurdles to further deployment of biofuels into the market. Limiting RFS to levels that can be met with existing infrastructure eliminates incentives to invest in the technologies and infrastructure necessary to meet our domestic policy goal of increasing biofuels production and use.

If the rule as proposed were adopted, it will:

  • Replace domestic biofuel production with fossil fuels, contributing to a greater dependence on foreign sources of oil and reduce our energy security.
  • Increase unemployment as renewable fuel producers cut back production.
  • Halt investments in cellulosic, biodiesel and other advanced renewable fuels. Rolling back the RFS will, potentially strand billions of dollars of private capital;
  • Undermine the deployment of renewable fuels infrastructure throughout the country;
  • Threaten the viability of the RFS, thereby solidifying an oil-based transportation sector and lowering consumer choice at the pump.

With these concerns in mind, we request that EPA revise the proposed 2014 RVOs in a manner that promotes investments in the next generation of biofuels and the infrastructure necessary to deploy those fuels into the market. Without a revised proposal, the EPA's rule will bring severe economic consequences, and prevent the growth of the renewable fuel sector.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

-30-

 

Pages