Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Homegrown, Renewable Biofuels

Mr. President,

It's that time of year again.

Without fail, every few months or so the Big Oil and Big Food interest groups start their misinformation campaign in an effort to denigrate the U.S. biofuels producers.

Last week, as if almost on cue, a group opposed to domestic efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil began their usual song and dance.

A press conference led by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other special interest groups was held to malign the benefits of homegrown renewable fuels.

Don't forget, this is the same group of folks who, a few years ago, waged a high-priced, inside-the-beltway smear campaign against ethanol for allegedly leading to higher food prices.

That myth was roundly dispelled.

Economists proved what farmers knew to be true - the higher cost of corn was responsible for just a tiny fraction of the increase in food prices.

So, while food manufacturers wanted consumers to believe that corn ethanol was doubling or tripling their grocery prices, non-biased observers knew the corn input costs were just pennies of the retail price of food.

However, with dozens of multi-billion dollar corporations and profits to protect, it's not surprising to see them attack our country's farmers and ranchers who are working to produce our nation's food, feed and fuel.

After all, they have a bottom line to look out for and pockets to line.

And now these same groups are at it again.  They see a new opportunity to undermine our domestic biofuels industry.

They're now arguing that our nation cannot afford government policies to foster further growth.

In other words, they're arguing that the cost of energy independence is too high, and we can't afford it.

They'd prefer we increase our reliance on fossil fuels and imported crude oil.  The unfortunate outcome of such attacks, however, is that less informed individuals begin to believe them.

I think it's important to review the true costs of imported fossil fuels.

In 2008 Americans sent over $450 billion to foreign countries to satisfy our demand for oil.  At $80 a barrel, we'll send nearly $350 billion overseas this year.

We rely on foreign oil to meet 60 percent of our oil demand.  And don't forget, much of the world's oil reserves are located in the Middle East.

According to the Energy Information Administration, oil price shocks and price manipulation by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries have cost our economy about $1.9 trillion between 2004 and 2008.

Our need for oil accounts for half of our trade deficit.

The federal government's support for homegrown ethanol equals less than 2 percent of the money we'll send to Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigera, and others.

The domestic ethanol industry supports 400,000 green jobs here in the United States.  Last year, ethanol contributed over $50 billion to our Gross Domestic Product.

It contributed $8.4 billion in tax revenue for the federal government.

The incentives we provide for ethanol production leads to a surplus of tax revenue for the federal treasury.

So, which is a better bargain?  Being dependent of foreign countries for 60 percent of our energy needs at a cost of $350 billion?  Or, keeping this money at home, creating green jobs, and increasing our national and economic security?

The choice is obvious.

So far I've only considered the economic costs.

Mr. President, this chart depicts just a small example of the environmental costs of our dependence on fossil fuels.

The first photo is one that we're all too familiar with by now - the explosion and ensuing oil spill at BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

The other photo depicts land in Canada where oil is being extracted from tar sands.

The fact is, fossil fuels are getting more expensive to extract, and are likely to come at a greater environmental cost.

The alternative is homegrown, renewable biofuels.

Today, ethanol accounts for 10 percent of our transportation fuels.  No other fuel alternative comes close to ethanol's contribution.

Domestically produced ethanol contributes more to our fuel supply than all foreign imports except Canada.

More ethanol means less greenhouse gas emissions.  A University of Nebraska study found that ethanol reduces direct greenhouse gas emissions by 48 to 59 percent compared to gasoline.

Ethanol production continues to improve and increasing crop yields mean we're producing more fuel from less grain and fewer acres.

Ethanol producers are reducing their energy and water usage.

Finally, Mr. President, it's important that we consider the national security cost of our dependence on foreign oil.

Oil from the Middle East accounts for 20 percent of U.S oil imports.

Seventeen million barrels of oil are shipped each day through the single most important shipping chokepoint - the Strait of Hormuz.

Fifteen crude oil tankers pass through the Strait of Hormuz on average every day, with much of the oil headed to the United States.

Two of the other largest oil shipping chokepoints are at the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Yemen.

To determine the true cost of America's dependence on foreign oil, it's important to understand the costs to the taxpayer of defending and protecting these shipping lanes.

A New York Times editorial in the late 1990's calculated the true cost of a gallon of gas, including military costs, at $5 a gallon.

Last week, I questioned four-star retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark on the true cost of gasoline.  He estimated it to be around $7 to $8 dollars a gallon.

Homegrown ethanol produced in the Midwest doesn't need a military escort to gas stations on the East or West coast.

Homegrown ethanol doesn't need the Department of Defense to protect its transport from farm fields to consumers.

Again, our nation's investment in ethanol is a bargain, and it's increasing our economic and national security.

That's why it's important that we continue our support of this industry.  Some have claimed that it's a mature industry, and it no longer needs our help.

One organization estimates that a lapse in the tax incentive for ethanol would shut down 40 percent of the industry and result in the loss of 112,000 green jobs.  Let me repeat - 112,000 jobs that rely on the production of ethanol.

We can't allow the ethanol industry to follow the path of the biodiesel industry, which is essentially shut down because this Congress has failed to extend their tax incentive.

While President Obama spoke in his address on Saturday about investing in homegrown, clean energy, 45,000 biodiesel jobs have vanished because of the lapse in the biodiesel credit.

It's inexcusable.

President Obama touted the goal of creating 800,000 clean energy jobs by 2012.  Why not take action today to extend the lapsed biodiesel tax credit and immediately put 45,000 Americans back to work?

The same thing could happen to the ethanol industry if we fail to extend the tax incentive.

If you undermine ethanol, you're putting out the welcome mat for dictators like Hugo Chavez.

Last week, the senior Senator from Arizona questioned the wisdom of our domestic renewable fuels incentives.

He was quoted as saying, "Maybe we will stop doing this damned foolishness called ethanol subsidies.  It's one of the greatest rip-offs that takes place on the American taxpayers."

To those who would do away with our domestic ethanol production, I have one question:  Which country should we look to for 10 billion gallons of fuel - Saudi Arabia? Venezuela?  Nigeria?

Who would you rather support with your hard-earned money?

Hugo Chavez or the American farmer?

Supporting Chavez is insanity.  Sending money to people who buy guns to fight us is insanity.

We shouldn't be reducing our use of renewable fuels.  We should be increasing it.

We should produce all we can from corn, crop residues and other biomass.

We should increase the use of biofuels by mandating the production of flex fuel vehicles and increasing the availability of blender pumps.

Ethanol is here today.  It's creating a cleaner environment, keeping money at home in our economy and increasing our national security.

Mercury Poses Significant Environmental, Public Health Risks

CHICAGO - July 26, 2010. Governor Pat Quinn today signed into law three bills that will further reduce the amounts of mercury in the environment that can be harmful to residents, especially young children. Illinois already leads the nation in reducing the public's exposure to mercury.

"Mercury exposure poses a threat to our waterways and environment, and to the public's health," said Governor Quinn. "These bills expand our efforts to significantly reduce the amounts of mercury in our environment by eliminating non-essential uses."

Senate Bill 3346, sponsored by Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) and Rep. Karen May (D-Highwood), requires thermostat manufacturers to maintain a statewide program to collect, transport and manage mercury-switch thermostats for recycling when they are taken out of service. Senate Bill 3347, also sponsored by Sen. Steans and Rep. May, phases out the sale and use of lead and mercury wheel balancing weights in Illinois on Jan. 1, 2012.

House Bill 6201, sponsored by Rep. May and Sen. Terry Link (D-Waukegan), extends the sunset date to for the automakers' current state program that collects and recycles mercury light switches from end-of-life vehicles before they are processed as scrap metal to Jan. 1, 2017.

Mercury can escape into the environment when improperly disposed or burned. If a mercury-containing device breaks and the spill is not cleaned up properly, the mercury forms into an odorless vapor, potentially reaching dangerous levels in indoor air. Methylmercury, an organic form of mercury, can accumulate up the food chain in lakes, streams and rivers, which results in high concentrations in the tissues of older and larger fish.

People are most frequently exposed to mercury through the consumption of contaminated fish or by inhaling vapors from spilled mercury or leaking equipment. Mercury poses a significant health risk, especially to young children and fetuses. Prolonged, low-level exposure may cause learning disabilities by impairing children's ability to think and read. Adults who have been exposed to high levels of mercury may experience trembling hands and numbness or tingling in their lips, tongues, fingers and toes.

Acute mercury poisoning, especially through ingestion, can damage the brain, liver, kidneys and even cause death. Mercury can harm wildlife that eats contaminated fish, particularly bald eagles, loons and other fish-eating birds and mammals.

All three laws go into effect immediately.

###

New Law Increases Penalty for Making Fake 9-1-1 Calls

CHICAGO - July 26, 2010. Governor Pat Quinn today signed a bill into law to deter individuals from placing false 9-1-1 calls by increasing penalties for fake 9-1-1 offenses. The new law will help protect law enforcement officers and emergency responders from dangers they may face when responding to false 9-1-1 calls.

"Making false calls to 9-1-1 can put our law enforcement officers and emergency responders in serious jeopardy and endangers public safety by straining resources. We must do everything we can to support the brave men and women who protect the public," said Governor Quinn. "By making the penalty harsher, this new law will help deter people from placing false 9-1-1 calls."

House Bill 6101, sponsored by Rep. Lisa Dugan (D-Kankakee) and Sen. Toi Hutchinson (D-Chicago Heights), amends the law to impose greater penalties on individuals found guilty of making a false 9-1-1 call.

Under the new law, a person found guilty of making a false 9-1-1 call will face a Class 4 felony for the first violation as well as subsequent violations. A Class 4 felony is punishable by one to three years in prison and a fine of up to $25,000. Under current law a false 9-1-1 call can result in a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and one year in jail.

The new law passed the Illinois General Assembly unanimously and takes effect Jan. 1, 2011.

This legislation comes after Kankakee County Sheriff's Deputy Dave Stukenborg was seriously injured in a car accident when responding to a prank call made to 9-1-1.

"Hopefully, this new law will deter people from making fake calls to 9-1-1, so no other family has to go through what my family has endured from such a senseless prank," said Stukenborg.

###

Senators again ask administration if plans are underway for large-scale de facto amnesty

WASHINGTON -- In response to the administration's silence and lack of a denial, Senator Chuck Grassley and 11 other senators again have asked top government officials if the Obama administration has plans, as has been rumored, to unilaterally extend either "deferred action" or "parole" to millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.  The senators are asking the Secretary of Homeland Security to reveal how many times the department has used its discretionary authority to let people who are illegally in the country to stay.  This authority is meant to be used only in unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances.

"The administration has yet to answer our letter about reports that it may be planning a large-scale, de facto amnesty program through deferred action and parole.  By shedding a little light on the numbers, we're working to get to the bottom of the administration's plans," Grassley said.  "If it wants to claim that discretionary authority is being used on a case-by-case basis, then let's determine if these cases are truly meritorious."

The letter was signed by Grassley, Thad Cochran, Johnny Isakson, Jim DeMint, Saxby Chambliss, Jim Inhofe, Tom Coburn, David Vitter, Orrin Hatch, Jim Bunning, Pat Roberts and Jeff Sessions.

Here is a copy of the text of today's letter, followed by the unanswered June 21 letter.

July 26, 2010

The Honorable Janet Napolitano

Secretary

Department of Homeland Security

Nebraska Avenue Complex

245 Murray Lane, Mailstop 0150

Washington, DC 20528-0150

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

We remained concerned about potential plans for a large-scale effort to offer parole or to defer action on undocumented aliens in the United States.  We realize that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances.  However, we do not believe that such actions should be used for a large population of illegal aliens or used to bypass Congress and the legislative process.

News articles report that your department has denied the charge, stating that grants of parole or deferred removal are based on the merits of individual cases.  While we have not personally been assured that plans have not been drawn up, we are interested in data that will guarantee the American people that the Administration is not using these discretionary actions in cases that are not urgent or based on humanitarian reasons.

Therefore, we seek the following information about how the department is using its authorities. Specifically, we would like answers to the following questions no later than August 16:

· How many removal actions have been deferred each year over the past 5 years, including calendar year 2010, to date?

· How many times has parole been granted each year over the past 5 years, including calendar year 2010, to date?

· Of those granted deferred action or parole in the past five years, including 2010, how many have been provided work authorizations?  In what circumstances are work authorizations not granted?

· What guidelines and procedures are in place when the department considers using its discretionary power to defer action or grant parole?  Please describe the process from the initial request to the final approval, and please provide a copy of the written policies that employees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Customs and Border Protection must follow.

Finally, in order to ensure that deferred action and parole are being used in a manner consistent with the law, we request to be notified in writing when the Administration defers removal action or grants parole to undocumented, deportable or inadmissible aliens.  We would further request a summary of the case and the rationale for using the discretionary action.  In that vein, we would like a summary (including demographic background) of the cases that so far have been approved in calendar year 2010.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

June 21, 2010

President Barack H. Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C.  20500

Dear President Obama:

We understand that there's a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States.  We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come.  We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances.  Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a "case-by-case" basis.

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population.   While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress' constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population.  Such a move would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.

We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Chuck Grassley

Orrin Hatch

Jim Bunning

Saxby Chambliss

Jim Inhofe

Johnny Isakson

Thad Cochran

David Vitter