Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Good afternoon-- thank you for inviting me to speak with you today, I always enjoy seeing farmers in our nation's Capital.

I know it's hard to justify getting away from the farm, but I assure everyone it's very important for you to be representing agriculture in Washington.

When people in Washington don't hear from farmers enough, they start doing ill-advised things like creating the Waters of the U.S. regulation.

On our farm in New Hartford, IA, my son Robin was able to get our crops in on time this year. However, I know some of you have grown tired of the rain which has delayed soybean plantings in Southern Iowa and Missouri.

I have heard reports that parts of Missouri have already received 30 of their average 38 inches of annual rainfall, and parts of Illinois have also received double their annual rainfall to date.

I hope my crops will finish strong this year.  Last year it quit raining in our part of Iowa during late summer which really affected our beans. And then about fifty acres flooded before we could get the field harvested.

That happened while most of the country was harvesting a bumper crop which brought back the $8 soybeans and $3 corn none of us wanted to see again.

The good news is, Congress and the Administration are working together to enable new free trade agreements to be adopted.  These agreements will increase export opportunities for our grain and other agricultural products.

Free trade is very important to our country and to our future economic prosperity.  Anyone who doesn't believe that is in denial, in my opinion.  We live in a global economy and the U.S. needs to be a leader on the issue of free trade.

We know that 80 percent of the purchasing power in the world is located outside the United States, along with 95 percent of the world's consumers.

Last year, U.S. exports equaled $2.35 trillion and supported nearly 12 million jobs.  In Iowa alone, 448,000 jobs are dependent on trade, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And those jobs pay 18 percent higher wages on average because they are tied to trade.

During testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, U.S. Trade Ambassador Froman pointed out that the U.S. is already an open marketplace with tariffs that average just 1.6 percent, some of the lowest in the world.

Yet at the same time, our companies face very high tariffs in other markets.  Some agricultural products face tariffs up to 400 percent, machinery can be up to 50 percent.

According to the Department of Agriculture, fiscal years 2010-2014 represent the strongest five years of agricultural exports in the history of our country.  We exported $675 billion worth of agricultural goods during that period.

To expand on the success of our existing free trade agreements, Congress recently passed Trade Promotion Authority or TPA.  I supported TPA, which after an arduous legislative process, was signed into law by the President on June 29.

TPA serves as a signal to other countries that Congress is serious about taking up free trade agreements.

TPA has two major components.  First, TPA gives the Administration negotiating objectives from Congress.  Essentially, the negotiating objectives serve as the 'to-do' list for our negotiators on issues Congress believes should be addressed in trade agreements.

Second, TPA outlines the process for Congress to consider free trade agreements.  Specifically, it states a final agreement cannot be amended and shall receive a single up or down vote in Congress.

That's important because no other country is going to sign a trade agreement that Congress could change.

With TPA in place, we are hopefully ready to finalize negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership otherwise known as the TPP.

President Obama notified Congress that he intended to enter into TPP negotiations on December 14, 2009.  If anyone tells you the TPP has been rushed, simply point out negotiations started six years ago.

There are currently eleven other countries participating in the TPP negotiations along with the United States.  Collectively, the twelve TPP countries represent nearly 40 percent of global GDP.

Additionally, the middle class is growing faster in Asia than any other area of the world.  Some estimates project the middle class in Asia is going to grow from a half a billion people today, to over three billion in just the next fifteen years.

From a strategic economic perspective-- the TPP makes a great deal of sense.

And regarding agriculture, the TPP offers great economic potential.  According to the Department of Agriculture, the United States exported $5.5 billion of soybeans and soybean products to the TPP region in 2014.

Japan, which is our fourth largest export market for soybeans, buys around $1 billion of U.S. soybeans every year.  Even though tariffs can be up to 20 percent.  Corn also faces tariffs as high as 40 percent in some TPP countries.

Beyond tariffs, the TPP also offers us a chance to reduce non-tariff trade barriers like Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary or SPS regulations.  An example of a SPS measure that prevents trade is how the European Union intentionally drags their feet when approving our biotechnology traits.

The TPA bill Congress just passed specifically mentions that SPS regulations need to be science based.

I have also been a long-time supporter of efforts to diversify our energy supply with clean-burning, homegrown renewable energy, including biodiesel.

Iowa leads the nation in renewable energy production.  It's the largest producer of alternative fuels.

It has the capacity to produce more than 4 billion gallons of clean-burning ethanol and biodiesel, including 22 million gallons of annual cellulosic ethanol production capacity.

The state of Iowa is proving that our farmers and ranchers can simultaneously produce the food, feed, fuel and fiber that our country needs.

Biofuels are reducing our dependence on finite fossil fuels.  They keep more money at home rather than sending it to Persian Gulf countries that may wish to do us harm.

In 2005 and again in 2007, the federal government made a commitment to homegrown, renewable energy when Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard.  The greatly expanded RFS II passed the Senate by a vote of 86-6.

In recent years, I've fought off efforts to undermine homegrown renewable energy by Big Oil and Big Food.

Biofuel proponents have dispelled the myths and misinformation campaigns that have been launched to discredit ethanol and biodiesel.

And once again, biofuels are under attack.

This time the attack has come from President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA's severe misstep with its proposed Renewable Volume Obligations released in November 2013 has been harmful to biofuel producers, to rural economies, our national security and our environment.

Biofuel producers have responded to the call for more homegrown, renewable energy.  But, the proposed rule released by the EPA undermined that commitment.

I'm glad the EPA decided to scrap its proposal and put forward a new proposal to set the Renewable Volume Obligations for 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Unfortunately, in most respects, the new EPA proposal isn't much better than the previous proposal.  While it is a positive step for biodiesel, I remain concerned with the biodiesel volumes for 2016 and 2017.

EPA's new proposal fails to adequately recognize the domestic biodiesel industry's production capacity and its ability to increase production.

I'm currently circulating a letter among my colleagues in the Senate to express our concerns with the new EPA proposal for biodiesel.  We're asking EPA to increase the volume obligations in 2016 and 2017 to reflect the capability of the domestic biodiesel industry.

The letter currently has approximately 20 signatures.  With your help and advocacy, we can get the support of even more Senators.

The lapse of renewable energy tax incentives has also created a lot uncertainty and slowed growth in the renewable industry.

That's why I'm also working to extend the credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel.  The tax incentive helps biodiesel compete with petroleum diesel.

The lapse of the credit serves only to hamper the strides made toward a viable self-sustainable renewable energy and fuel sector.

I'm pleased it appears the Senate Finance Committee, of which I'm a member, will consider a tax extenders package next week.

All indications are that the package will include a straight extension of all expired tax provisions for 2015 and 2016.  This is certainly good news.

Please know that I will continue to fight for homegrown renewable fuels, whether with the EPA over volume obligations, or to reinstate the tax incentive for biodiesel.  I appreciate all your help on these issues.

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING

An Executive Business Meeting has been scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary for Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

By order of the Chairman.

AGENDA

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226

July 16, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.?

I. Bills

S. 1169, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Grassley, Whitehouse, Cornyn, Leahy, Durbin)

S. 1599, Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2015 (Grassley, Leahy)

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley expressed frustration with the administration's unwillingness to take action against communities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials' efforts to deport criminal aliens.

Some state and local governments and law enforcement jurisdictions have adopted policies and practices to refuse to cooperate with federal detainer requests to hold individuals who are in the country illegally.  Detainers are issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that certain individuals can be held by local law enforcement until they can be transferred to federal immigration officials for deportation.  The administration's increasingly lax approach to enforcement of the laws has allowed these so-called "sanctuary cities" to ignore the federal requests, and release criminals back into communities.

In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Grassley asked for details related to cases in which federal detainers or requests for notification of the release of a criminal alien have been ignored, leading to avoidable crimes.  Grassley also implored Lynch and Johnson to take action to reverse "sanctuary city" policies and restore programs that promote collaboration between local and federal officials to prioritize the removal of dangerous criminals.

Grassley's letter follows a series of crimes by individuals who were shielded from federal immigration officials by "sanctuary cities," including the recent San Francisco shooting of Kathryn Steinle by Francisco Lopez-Sanchez.  Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times prior to the shooting.  In a media interview following the shooting, he admitted to moving to San Francisco because he knew local officials would not cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Bipartisan bill would raise SEC's limits on securities fines, tie penalties to scope of harm, and crackdown on repeat offenders

WASHINGTON, DC - In an effort to protect investors and strengthen oversight and accountability of Wall Street, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are introducing bipartisan legislation to strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) ability to crack down on violations of securities laws.

The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act (SEC Penalties Act) of 2015 updates and strengthens the SEC's civil penalties statute by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat securities law violators.

Under existing law, the SEC in some cases can only penalize individual violators a maximum of $160,000 per offense and institutions $775,000.  In other cases, the SEC may calculate penalties to equal the gross amount of ill-gotten gain, but only if the matter goes to federal court, not when the SEC handles a case administratively.  The SEC Penalties Act increases the per-violation cap applicable to the most serious securities laws violations to $1 million per violation for individuals, and $10 million per violation for entities.  It would also triple the penalty cap for recidivists who have been held criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the preceding five years.  The agency would be able to assess these types of penalties in-house, and not just in federal court.

"This bipartisan bill gives the SEC the firepower it needs to crack down on Wall Street fraud and punish repeat offenders.  More than half of all U.S. households own securities.  They depend on the market to help secure their retirement and send their kids to college.  They shouldn't have to suffer undue risk or incur losses while securities law violators get away with a slap on the wrist.  Investors deserve real protection, and the law needs to change to ensure the punishment fits the crime.  This bill gives the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street," said Reed, a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee.  "I am pleased to be joined by Senator Grassley in this bipartisan effort to enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud."

"If a fine is just decimal dust for a Wall Street firm, that's not a deterrent," Grassley said.  "It's just the cost of doing business.  A penalty should mean something, and it should get the recidivists' attention.  I especially like the increased penalties for repeat offenders in this bill.   That should help change the dynamic of business as usual.  If this legislation is enacted, as I hope it will be, I expect the SEC to use these new penalties.  The SEC doesn't always use all of the penalties at its disposal, and it should."

SUMMARY: The SEC Penalties Act of 2015

Update Civil Money Penalties for Securities Law Violations. The bill modernizes and updates the maximum money penalties that may be obtained from individuals and entities charged with securities law violations in administrative and civil actions.

Most Serious Violations. The maximum penalty for an individual charged with the most serious violations (i.e., third tier violations involving fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement that resulted in substantial losses to victims or substantial pecuniary gain to the violator) could not exceed, for each violation, the greater of (i) $1 million, (ii) three times the gross pecuniary gain, or (iii) the losses incurred by victims as a result of the violation.  The maximum amount that could be obtained from entities charged with the most serious violations could not exceed, for each violation, the greater of (i) $10 million, (ii) three times the gross pecuniary gain, or (iii) the losses incurred by victims as a result of the violation.

Other Violations. The maximum penalties for individuals and entities charged with other violations would be revised as follows:

1.               The maximum penalty for an individual charged with less serious violations involving fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement (i.e., second tier violations) could not exceed, for each violation, $100,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation in some cases.  The maximum penalty that could be obtained from entities charged with these violations could not exceed, for each violation, $500,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation in some cases.

2.               The maximum penalty for an individual charged with violations not involving fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement (i.e., first tier violations) could not exceed, for each violation, $10,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation in some cases.  The maximum penalty that could be obtained from entities charged with these violations could not exceed, for each violation, $100,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation in some cases.

Penalties for Recidivists. The maximum amount of the penalty for repeated misconduct shall be three times the applicable cap when the person or entity within the five years preceding the act or omission is held criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud.

Violations of Injunctions or Bars. The bill provides authority to seek civil penalties for violations of previously imposed injunctions or bars obtained or entered under the securities laws.  It also provides that each violation of an injunction or order shall be considered a separate offense.  However, in the event of an ongoing failure to comply with an injunction or order, each day of the continued failure to comply with the injunction or order shall be considered a separate offense.

-end-