I am Lillian Voss and I am 94 years old. My late husband, Burton Voss (also known as Michael Voss), and I have lived at 4336 S. Concord Street for nearly 60 years. My husband died in 1994. Our house was built above the 100-year flood plain. We experienced all the major flooding along the Mississippi river these past years. My husband fought very hard against the tactics of the Corps of Engineers regarding the water levels of the Mississippi river. With this new threat of major flooding and after reading the article in the QC Times "Ask the Times" titled "River's high level is a natural one" dated 2/17/2011 (enclosed), I feel I must come forward and again try to expose the tactics of the Corps of Engineers.

Do you realize the Corps of Engineers hold back the water on the Mississippi to artificially raise the river level to 9' so that the barge traffic can operate efficiently? In holding back this water and not allowing it to escape, the river level is not far from the flood stage when the spring thawing begins in the upper Mississippi valley. This high level of water on the Mississippi makes the flooding in the spring considerably worse. Each spring when a flood is predicted along the Mississippi, I have a friend call the Corps of Engineers to ask them to fully open the dams to allow the water to flow freely and naturally. Each time I would ask they would claim it would not make any difference if they did open the dams. Anyone could see that if you open the dams and allow the water to escape down the river, the water level would drastically drop. This would allow a cushion for drainage for the water coming down the river as the snow melts and the rains fall. You will find my husband's research information enclosed .

In 1962 over 1000 petitions were submitted to Congressman Fred Schwingal requesting the Corps of Engineers to open the dams. At that time we were facing a major flood as the snow started to melt in the upper Mississippi. Congressman Schwingal had enough influence to order the dams opened. In that year we avoided a major flood. This is certain evidence that opening the dams fully does have an effect or influence on the flooding on the Mississippi. As a result of opening the dams that year, the current of the river increased dramatically as the water level fell. Many barge accidents occurred and the dams were never opened fully again in the following years.

By opening the dams fully this would allow the water level to drop drastically so the river could receive the tremendous amount of snow melting off and the spring rains. Flooding would not be nearly as severe.

A meeting was held with the Corps of Engineers on 3/18/2011. These were the major concerns of Corps of Engineers about opening the dams fully. I expressed my opinion after each concern:

1. The barges could not operate if the dams were opened fully.

My Comment: There is no excuse to leave the dams closed just to allow the barge traffic to come through when a serious flood is most likely to occur. We The People along the Mississippi have to suffer through these damaging floods. Is the barge traffic more important than preventing a catastrophic flood or at least making it less severe? I believe the barges can operate at a lower water level.

2. The law states the Corps of Engineers have to maintain a 9' river channel for the barges.

My Comment: What kind of a person would make up a law that would take superiority over the victims of a catastrophic flood? This is totally irresponsible. Did the barge companies make this law? A law like this would most certainly have an exception with regard to a major flood looming.

3. By keeping the water level high we are protecting the fish and wildlife. If we lower the water level, we won't be able to protect the fish and wildlife.

My Comment: How do the fish and wildlife get along when the river is low at other times of the year? Many times in the past 10 years the water gauges measure one or two feet, sometimes not even a reading. How do the fish and wildlife manage then? We are talking maybe one week of low water level, if that long.

4. These water dams were not constructed for flood control. They were constructed for commerce.

My Comment: At the time of getting support (public opinion and financial), to build the locks and dams, flood control was a major reason as well as commerce. We are not now talking about flood control use. At this time the dams are causing floods, not preventing them. By holding back water to raise the water level on the river, this is contributing to the flooding. Let the water go naturally by fully opening the dams. What harm could it do? We would certainly have a less severe flood.

5. Fully opening the dams might cause flooding down the Mississippi.

My Comment: If opening the dams might cause further flooding down-river, then why are you saying the dams were not built for flood control. You are damming up the water. Open the last dam first and let the water run and start opening the next dams in sequence as you go north. If you open the dams at the lower locks and dams (the last dam first) and carefully move up the river opening each dam while doing it, carefully timed, not all at once, you should prevent flooding down-river. With careful coordination and planning there would not be any flooding when the dams are fully opened.

6. Our college experiments show that opening the dams and lowering the water levels would not make any difference on the severity of the floods.

My Comment: It sounds logical to me that if the river is low at the beginning more water can run down the river before the water goes over its banks. In 1962 it did make a difference. They opened the dams, the water went down the river and we did not have a severe flood. A great volume of water would run down the river before it would ever go out of its banks because it would not be restricted by the dams. What harm would it do just to open the dams and let the water run naturally. After all, this was the way it was before the dams were built. We were getting the 100-year floods then. Now we are getting the 100-year floods every three or four years. We are only talking about the dams being opened for one to two weeks, at most, before the full force of the water comes down.

7. The lower water level will prevent municipalities from getting clean water out of the Mississippi.

My Comment: Iowa American Water Company tells me they can get adequate clean water out of the Mississippi at one and two foot water levels. After all, what did they do when the water level was at the one or two foot readings in the past? Many times in the past years the water level has been below the two foot water stage.

8. If you can get Congress to tell us to open the dams, we will gladly open the dams.

My Comment: As we were getting ready to close the meeting, this statement was one of the last statements made by the engineers. This statement tells me the Corps of Engineers are not entirely to blame for these dams being closed to hold back the water.

It appears that the barge companies have more power over the Corps if Engineers and our Federal politicians than We The People along the Mississippi river. I must ask- Why is that???

I am calling on our Senators and Representatives to order the Corps of Engineers to fully open all the dams up and down the Mississippi river to allow the water to flow freely for this short period of time. Allow the river level to drastically fall so the river can receive the tremendous amount of water that is now starting to melt off. River traffic must be restricted until the major snow melt is over. Without a doubt, this action would reduce the severity of the flood.

Open the gates and let the river flow naturally as it once did for this short period of time. Try it once, if it does not work, then there would be no need to try it again. What harm is there in trying it? In 1962 it worked.

Sincerely,

Lillian Voss

The Iowa Department of Transportation will use the funds to implement and enforce occupant protection programs to reduce deaths and injuries from riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor vehicles.

According to the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970 to carry out safety programs previously administered by the National Highway Safety Bureau.  The agency is charged with improving motor vehicle and highway safety.

-30-

Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley

Ethanol and Energy Independence

Delivered Monday, March 07, 2011

The American economy remains on unsettled footing.  While there are some small signs of an economic recovery, it is still fragile.

The consumer confidence level seems to be increasing.  U.S. factory activity is up.  But, the housing market remains weak.

The nation's unemployment rate stands at nine percent.  And now, our economy is facing a significant headwind due to rising energy prices.

Since the unrest began in Tunisia, our energy markets have been rocked by the uprisings in Egypt, and now in Libya.

Libya produces only roughly two percent of the world's crude oil, with much of that going to Europe.

The uncertainty and fear about supplies, according to oil speculators, has driven crude prices to more than $100 a barrel.

Prices at the pump were already high before the unrest in the Middle East.  The events just worsened the problem.

According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices jumped 19 cents during a one week period at the end of February. This is the second largest one-week jump in more than 20 years.

American's are now paying an average of $3.38 a gallon for gasoline.  This is 68 cents higher than this time last year.

The average cost to fill up a tank of gas is likely around $50.  For a family struggling to make ends meet, these are valuable dollars spent at that pump, going overseas.

Our country is at risk.  Our economy is at risk.  Our nation's security is at risk.

Our ever-increasing reliance on foreign sources for energy is undermining our nation's economic and national security.

The activity in the Middle East over the last six weeks should be an alarm bell going off.  It should be a wake-up call.

Let me be clear.  I know that for our economy to grow and for business and individuals to thrive, we need access to reliable, affordable energy.

I support an energy policy of all of the above.

First, we must have access to oil and gas resources here at home.

The idea that we limit access to our own resources, which in turn leads us to go hat-in-hand to foreign dictators and oil sheiks, is ludicrous

We currently import more than 60 percent of our crude oil needs.  It doesn't have to be that way.

I know we can't get to energy independence by drilling alone.

But isn't it a little foolish to have our economy held hostage by events in Libya, where only two percent of the world's oil comes from?

The Obama Administration needs to put an end to the existing policy of a de facto moratorium through permitting.

We need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect workers and the environment.

But, permitting delays and obstacles should not prevent our nation from moving forward to developing resources here at home.  I also support efforts to expand the use of clean coal and nuclear energy.

I also support conservation efforts.  I agree that the cheapest form of energy is the energy that doesn't have to be used.

Here in the Senate, I've supported polices aimed at reducing energy use in homes and buildings through conservation and energy efficient technologies.  I see the value in reducing overall energy consumption.

I've also been a leader in the senate in promoting alternative and renewable energy.

The supply of fossil fuels is finite.

We must look to alternative and renewable resources so we can improve our energy and national security.

This includes supporting energy from wind, biomass, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal and biofuels.

I'd like to focus on the effort to develop homegrown biofuels.

For many years, Congress has realized the need to develop an alternative to fossil fuels, particularly as a means of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

One of the first policies was a tax incentive to encourage the use of homegrown ethanol.

For over a hundred years, the fossil fuel industry has had a monopoly on our transportation fuel.

They built the market.  They own the infrastructure.  They weren't about to use a product they didn't manufacture, own, or profit from.

So, Congress created a tax incentive to encourage big oil to use the product and make it available to consumers.  It was paired with an import tariff to make sure that only domestic ethanol receives the benefit of the tax incentive.

The tax incentive and the tariff work together to do two things.

The incentive exists to encourage the use of domestic ethanol.

The tariff exists to ensure we aren't giving a tax incentive to already-subsidized foreign ethanol.

Together, they ensure that we don't replace our dependence on foreign oil with a dependence on foreign ethanol

So, the incentive was created to encourage big oil to use the product.

In 2005, Congress created the Renewable Fuels Standard.  This standard was created to ensure that a minimum amount of renewable fuels was used in the fuel supply.

It was strongly opposed by big oil, but it was enacted over their opposition.

In 2007, it was greatly expanded.  It mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by 2022.

It also limits the amount that can come from corn starch ethanol at 15 billion gallons.

One of the criticisms I hear occasionally is that ethanol receives both an incentive and a mandate.  I'd like to address this point.

First, while the mandate requires that the fuel be used, it does not mandate that the ethanol be produced domestically.  The incentive acts as encouragement to use a homegrown product.

It increases economic activity at home and works to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Secondly, the mandate acts as a floor to ethanol use. Without the incentive, we would consume the bare minimum.  The incentive encourages ethanol use beyond the mandate.

Some in the environmental community are quick to raise objections to the biofuels mandates and incentives.

This is a clear example of the limitless hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty in Washington.

Many of the loudest voices against these policies are same voices who lobby me for tax incentives and mandates for wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy.

I'm a strong supporter of electricity generated from wind and other renewable sources.  I first authored the production tax credit for wind in 1992.

Over the years, it has been expanded to include other types of resources.

Since as far back as 2003, environmental advocacy groups have been pushing for a renewable portfolio standard, which is a mandate.

So, they want the production tax credit for wind and other renewable electricity, and a mandate that it be produced.  Yet, they oppose those same policies for biofuels.

It's clearly a double standard and inconsistency that undermines their credibility on these issues.

I've been a champion of ethanol and biofuels for a long time.  I'm well aware of the positive role ethanol is playing to create a cleaner environment.

It's improving our economic and national security.  And, it's creating jobs and economic activity in rural America.

In 2010, nearly 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the United States contained some ethanol.  The 13 billion gallons of ethanol produced in United States reduced our oil imports by 445 million barrels of oil.

After domestic oil production and imports from Canada, U.S. ethanol production is the third largest source of transportation fuel.

U.S. ethanol production is larger than what we import from Saudi Arabia or from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

Without domestic biofuels, we'd be on bended knee even more than we are today begging others for oil.

Ethanol is the only reliable, legitimate alternative to crude oil.  Domestic ethanol currently accounts for nearly 10 percent of our transportation fuel.

There is no other renewable fuel that comes close to achieving the economic, environmental and national security benefits currently delivered by ethanol.

Mr. President, there are other well-funded misinformation campaigns under way to undermine the only alternative to imported crude oil.

Big oil has been joined in recent years by opportunistic grocery manufacturers who hope to find a scapegoat in their desire to increase profits and raise food prices.

They continue to perpetuate the same tired, baseless arguments to try and undermine our efforts toward energy independence.

They're more interested in protecting market share and profits than national and economic security.

Over the next few weeks, I'm going to do everything I can to educate my colleagues and the public on the benefits of domestic biofuels.

I'm not going to sit quietly while the energy, environmental and national security benefits of ethanol are scoffed at.  I intend to beat back every false attack.

The American public deserves an honest, fact-based discussion about the benefits of reducing our dependence on people like Hugo Chavez and Moammar Kadafi.

They deserve to hear the benefits of reducing our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

I look forward to continuing this education and dialogue.

-30-