rochester as a result of gang activity generated in prison. that is a problem we have to deal with. that does not diminish our need to make sure we are safe as a country which is what i am hearing the witnesses testify about today. i am glad the point has been made so many times about radicalized violent jihadis because they are what i am concerned about. i want to know if there are ways to identify these individuals in prison and when they are released, what happens next? they won't cause much harm in city prison at least i suspect. but what safeguards do we have in place to protect our citizens from they are released? i come from areas where we have lockdown cases and the cooperation law-enforcement receive from the muslim community was incredible. they brought the issues to our law enforcement. these people were identified and

prosecuted, individuals who trained under osama bin laden in training camps that came back before 9/11. this is the culture on come from but we have to find the solution and the mentality where we protect the united states of america and our citizens so i want to know what is in place to assist in ensuring the safety of our country once people who have identified as deradicalize are released from prison? why do we have to wait for the first crime to occur? that is what i want to know. that does not take away from our need to have vigilance and make sure these gangs members upon release do not continue to wreak havoc and slaughtered innocent people as well. in my judgment we can hit those issues. it is not an either/or proposition. ..

>> to share this intelligence and there is a mechanism in place where there's advanced notice of a violent extremist reentry into the community. i think that's a smart practice that needs to be shared across the united states. >> i was going to say, again, much of the mechanisms are in place for dealing with gang members. in my community a gang member has been identified by the institution certainly in the packets that are sent up with them after they're convicted, also in the institutions themselves are identified as gang members, when they are released or paroled they go to orientation meetings where they are met with and discuss their situation with tang officers from the local police department. the mechanisms are in place. it's a matter of expanding that

process to those that have been i did not as a violent radical jihadists, for example, and the prison system that get paroled into the committee. there was no reason what we are currently doing can't be used, for example, to identify those individuals that are being paroled into working areas and potential threatening our safety. >> i have five seconds left. i'm conscious of my time. how do we identify the model prison? are we truly able to know who is going to become a threat when they leave the prison? >> i will defer to mr. dunleavy but i will say the answer is yes because we can identify members of prison gangs, the intelligence is there on these other groups so there's no reason again why the portfolio if you will can't be expanded to include radical jihadists. >> thank you. >> she has proven herself a true member of the committee by going over time on your first question. you fit right in with everybody

else. [laughter] i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, also former united states attorney. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks to each of the distinguished panelists for your presence here today, and for your work and this important area. that's one of, i want to fall up on the question from ms. hochul. that's what i'm trying to comprehend here, is how we look at distinguishing where the association is being created among people who are finding each other to share some sort of growing prislam versus those who are affiliating in some way into a prison culture, the gang culture. and it's it distinguishable? >> i think it is distinguishable. i think one of the things that would help is if corrections department as a whole record the

data for change of religion. we talk about how many% of inmates are muslim, how many are catholic, how many are jewish. but how many actually change religion two or three times during a period of incarceration. and then why? that would be something to be able to follow up on. why do we have an individual who has now been in prison three times spent before you go on, you touched on this earlier, or some other panelists did, which is in a sense of of those who are the teachers of the faith, and are given access, materials and other kinds of things in the prison. is there any kind of a standard by which it's appropriate or legitimate for the government to determine who should be sort of a shepherd of the flock? >> i think the government has the right to determine who can enter a correctional facility, the it as an employee or a volunteer.

and religions volunteer has the same sway and influence as a religious chaplain does. and yet there is no vetting on them. there's no standardization. they simply coming. who invited them in, how did they get in? >> with respect to the kevin james jis case, the reality is that there's some issue with individuals imam from the outside coming in and many with prisoners. but the problem that we also have, and certainly illustrated in the jis case was the fact that kevin james himself taught this cut in case version of prislam if you will and was able to because of his charismatic personality, because of his toughness, was able to grow a number of followers. and so, the prison system is not in a position to be able to dictate no, sir, you cannot, you cannot preach islam to fellow inmates. the problem is someone in that

situation, goes back to your earlier question, jis, for example, the radicalization is the creation of this group overlaid on the prison gang model, okay? james as the shot caller or the shake of the particular group. the comedic asian protocol that the use, they pass these messages. where there's a communication system, and probably every prison so they're able to get their information, trans institution. in other words, it wasn't just jis members just were james was. they were throughout the california department of corrections. they were -- chain set up a system where he would send the protocol to mail on the outside because inmates couldn't send letters to each other. and then the person on the outside would forward it to an inmate at another institution so he was able to get statewide

coverage, if you will, of this protocol. so that again, they just took the prison gang models and just overlaid the radical islamic jihad. >> what's the solution? in other words, we are costly amazed at the way that inmates are able to communicate come and ingenuity associate with it. but is the real goal for us then not so much be worried about the method of comedic asian butt identify those who seem to be sharing this philosophy and then to an appropriate job of following the? >> i think that's exactly right. the solution is vigilance in terms of identifying the members and groups because communication networks, he will find ways to committee. so to try to stop that might be futile. >> mr. useem, you made a comment that the profile is different. how? >> different in education, different in poverty.

the tears seemed to be from better educated backgrounds and criminals have very, tend to be very low education. the relevance of that is whether or not the the act and the self interest. to become a terrorist one has to have a lot of goals and that comes with education. >> there's a lot of guys that are strapping bombs on the backs all around the world walking into places because they have come under the influence of somebody who's charismatic or otherwise. you think those people are well educated? you to? >> yes. there's very strong evidence. [talking over each other] >> i think that's correct. >> the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from illinois, mr. david is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for appearing in being here with us. mr. useem, i'm not proud of it,

but i have one of the largest single site incarceration places in america, something called cook county jail, where more than 10,000 people are often confined there. and, of course, six, 7% of those african-americans who are there, they pretty much mirror the state prison system which is much larger. you know, that's something we would like to sheik a little bit if we could in illinois, but it's tough. a recent study suggested that the largest number of individuals who convert to islam are african-americans. are you familiar with this study over this kind of information? and whether or not you think those individuals are doing so

for personal development or for terrorism in? >> i'm not familiar with that particular study. >> do you have an opinion relative to the conversion itself? >> the conversion tends to be among african-americans, that's the case. but in terms of terrorists themselves, josé padilla, the dirty bomber carrier potentially, was not african-american so it's not exclusive. >> mr. dunleavy, mr. smith, mr. downing, let me ask you, how do you suggest that we monitor radicalization while simultaneously respecting the faith of islam? and i'm also concerned a great deal about what we do for individuals in terms of helping them we integrate back into normal life. and so, what kind of support

activity would you suggest for these individuals? >> i think the same way that we institutionalized the idea of recording suspicious activity across the united states through indicators and warnings. we've also used that process to educate people where we used to get many reports of what would be called muslims with cameras, which have no -- committed no crimes, no indicator of a character country in nexis, people would report this. in the same sense to bring this into the prison system so that they know there's a distinction between somebody who is practicing the faith and somebody who is practicing a violent form of a hijacked faith, or a cut-and-paste version of another faith. there are indicators and warnings that need to be ingrained in the prison system so that we don't profile people, but we profiled behavior. and that is a big distinction.

as far as the release and the reintegration into society, that is just huge. in los angeles we are involved in a parolee release program for rehabilitation and job training, and that is a big part of our whole prevention strategy. we are faced with our new release now because of the economy and the shortfalls. and so we are expecting to see 6000 parolees enter the population, most of which is going to be in los angeles. so it's a big concern to us. >> thank you, sir. i couldn't agree more with chief downing. the way to do it properly so that those individuals who are legitimately practicing their faith, whether it's islam or another faith, i have to be protected and have to be given the right to do that. i spent my professional career upholding the constitution. i know the congresswoman from texas begetter statement talking

about that. that's something that i hold very dear, obviously as a career prosecutor. the consideration has to be education in the correctional institution of the personnel there so that they can be given behavioral indicators, not -- so that they may be able to separate any sort of radical hijack as chief downing said, attempt of islam versus legitimate and true faith. >> mr. dunleavy? >> i think in a correctional facility that religion is a very positive aspect, it helps to put a calming influence and also helps the individual to change his life, to have a higher purpose. in the early attica riot, muslim inmates were credited with having prevented additional deaths or injuries to staff.

so islam in prison can have a positive effect. we have to recognize the foreign influences of this ideology, which is different, and the way that works. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. before recognize the next member i would like to acknowledge the audience. mr. me, i want to tell you your son is doing a good job. after many years as report his he is finally earning an honest living. [laughter] >> thank you. >> i recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank all of our panel nose for being here today. i first want to comment i was just a bit surprised in front a bit disappointed as well when summoned his of our committee are really questioning why we are having this and seem to be to me that if we almost diverge into a discussion about prisons generally. and i don't believe that that is the focus of our committee. are committing is homeland security and i think it's entirely appropriate that we're

here today, and i will go where the risk is. and i believe other members of the committee well as well. so we need to look at other areas, other groups, i'm happy to do that. but i believe that radical islamists present a a real threat, and it's appropriate that we examined that today. now, i'd like to direct the first question to mr. downing. sir, on the main -- may 19 the committee staff visited the super max prison with those al qaeda members have been captured there held in civilian prisons are kept and confined. and the staff there observed this, that the insistence of attorney general's department of justice, that some al qaeda prisoners our lack of unmonitored conversation with defense attorneys, and that despite repeated requests for an available technology that the bureau of prisons and fbi have requested, or at least would be available to them, that that

technology is not there and they are unable to monitor conversations between al qaeda prisoners during recreation time. and so, mr. downing, do those policies which they are not fbi policies, not bureau of prisons policies but coming from the department of justice, do they degrade our safety here as americans? and also for the personnel who work within prisons. >> in terms of this threat, intelligence is absolutely key. and we need to greet an environment that is hostile -- create an environment that is hostile to recruiting, developing this ideology and also to executing plots are planning plots. and so i think it does diminish our ability to further understand the planning. >> thank you. the second question i'd like to

track to mr. dunleavy. and thank you for being here but i want to revisit the letter that was sent to the gym and recently. and just in part, it states this. i'm a muslim and i feel because america's war is still -- america's war on islam i am an enemy of the united states, and so what the threshold of speech must be met with a person is a self-declared enemy of the net states, a self-declared person who influences others as in im imam, what threshold has to be met before we can isolate that person and keep him or her from influencing others? >> i think that statement in itself is the threshold. if you have an individual who is identifying himself as an enemy of the united states and state he is at war, then you have to recognize that. you have to know your enemy if you're going to effectively fight him. >> for the record i am in full agreement. i trust this is happening within

our prison system that this gentleman, i was delighted to learn that that letter had been sent to the fbi and i hope he is isolated and there is a serious consequence for the action that he is taken in the letter he is said and what he stated. any person who has declared himself to be an enemy of the united states needs to be isolated, and certainly within the prison system and maybe further actions. but thank all of you for being here today and i yield back the remainder of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding, and the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all i'd like to request that you accept into the record by unanimous consent a summary of the letters that you said that into the record. -- that you submitted into the record. with you except? >> without objection. >> all right. one want to highlight is a summary of the letters that were

submitted. 16 letters and 14 individuals submitted. two of those individuals are convicted of right wing terrorist activities. two others have threatened to commit act of terrorism, and three of the individuals are convicted of murder. one for killing two police officers on separate occasions and another for killing three people. one was on the fbi's 10 most wanted list, one was stated in writing to the times saying in a little more than 14 months in all i would probably commit mass murder, and another state while in prison for mailing a bomb to a u.s. attorney, he attempted to send another improvised explosive device and a powdery substance labeled anthrax. so what i want to stay for the record forced to consider letters in these individual i think is probably questionnaire in any court of law would be considered. the second thing, mr. dunleavy, according to webster's dictionary the definition of radicalization is the process in

which an individual changes from passiveness art activism to become more revolutionary, militant or extremist. would you agree with that webster's dictionary explanation? >> yes. webster has it in its dictionary it must be correct. >> that's right it's a light of that i would like to ask you a question. do you have agent gangs in new york? >> what? >> do you have asian gangs in new york next do you have asian gangs in new york? >> to live agents in new york? [inaudible] >> i'm not in new york anymore. i'm not employed by the department anyone. >> when you were, when you would you say they were asian gangs in new york? >> that, i would say -- >> would you say there are mexican gangs in your? >> probably. >> african-american gangs in new york? >> probably. >> would you say there are white supremacy groups in new york? >> absolutely. >> in light of that i think the question would really be, would

you say that those groups kill people? individuals in those groups have killed people? yes or no. i only have two minutes. >> sure. >> would you also say individuals in those groups are radicalize in the definition that i just read from webster's dictionary? that those groups would be in the individuals changing or have changed from passiveness or activism to become more revolutionary militant or extremist? >> i think it's a generalization. i mean -- >> i asked you a question. would you -- >> that was my answer. >> some of these groups we alluded to, have also been radicalize? that's my question. >> and again, some of the groups you didn't -- >> is your answer yes? >> i set my answer is this is a generalization. >> i'm going to repeat. my question, because you are here testifying on the record and you claim some sort of knowledge and expertise. so my question is, based in the

area that you worked in, would you agree that members of asian gangs, black gangs, mexican gangs, and white supremacy have often been radicalize according to the definition that i read in the webster's dictionary? and the definition of radicalize, i will repeat it again, individuals who may on time been passive our activists who have now become more revolutionary, militant or extremist in the action and their ideas? would you agree to that? >> yeah, i would say some. >> thank you, sir. so then that brings me to the question of my point of what i would like to say about committee hearings. in california alone 800 -- to 812 game related homicides in california. in 2007. i'm trying to get the national number as we speak but i don't have the. i would like to say this in light of some of the comments that have been made. i do not disagree that

radicalization, according to the definition i read, i don't disagree as mr. dunleavy said that radicalization in fact occurs in prisons with various groups. what i disagree with and i would take it with all due respect to the chairman, is the scope of this committee's only focusing on one particular group. i actually believe that the focus of one particular group on the basis of race or religion can be deemed as racist and is discriminatory. and i would ask for the record in the future that we as a committee, i agree that we need to look at the prisons, and i wholeheartedly agree we need to examine all terrorist attacks and threats. you have my 100% support. but the continued discriminatory what i believe of one particular group on the basis of race or religion is flawed and should not be done in the house of representatives. i yield back. >> since the charges leveled to me i will take the prerogative

of entry but i disagree 100%. she is highly wrong. the fact is this committee was set up to combat terrorism. set up after september 11. as mr. smith testified there's procedures in place which followed gains in prison. we have a protocol in place for the. unfortunately, because of political correctness we do not have policies in place to follow those trained in jihad in the prisons. that's why this is unique. i would say to the gentlelady, your party had control of this committee for four years. not one meeting on skinheads, on nazis, on aryan nation, white supremacy at all. suddenly this issue emerges when we start talking up muslim radicalization. we have a hearing to deal with other issues in prison. i agree, gangs are very important to neo-nazis are important the purpose of this committee is to combat islamic terrorism because that is a terrorist threat to this country. we find out me on nazis come

into this country we will investigate. if we find out that aryan nation -- it's my time. if we find out if aryan nation is allied with a foreign power we will address a. the fact is we will not spread ourselves out to investigate everything which means investigating nothing. that's why we are doing it without anyway minimizing the other threats. we have committees for the. argument is set up to combat terrorism. with that ideal. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i will not. >> check out the history. >> the fact is if it was so important for years on this committee and not once was a hearing held. recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. very important hearing. question for the panel, we have been present with testimony of radicalization occurring in los angeles, illinois and new york in prison systems, among others. the dirty bomber josé padilla was radicalized i believe you

referred and then associate with the radical mosque in my home state of florida. this radicalization associated with prisons seem to be more prominent in particular states, regions or hotspots, and then also to what extent to facilitators of prison radicalization move among and throughout various prison systems in areas, and what can be done to curb geographic spread of prison radicalization? >> i don't think it contains just certain cities are certain states. i think it moves nationwide. radicalization, particularly ideology moves throughout. it can work in a county jail, he can work in a state jail, a court in the federal prison. i think what has to be done is akin to recognize it as a problem. we called it a problem not because there's 5000 individuals

being converted every five minutes or something like that. it's very selected. it's a process. we have to recognize the process. we have to be able to interrupt the process and we have to be able to have some sort of standards nationwide in the vetting of clergy. >> i would say that the way i look at the issue of prison radicalization that we are talking that here today, it's part of an overall situation that we have been experiencing in this country of homegrown radicalization and domestic jihad is. this is an issue that we once thought was never going to come to our shores, that we're going to have a problem with here, but that was overseas in great britain or in spain or in some countries in europe or overseas. that wasn't the thinking and even rent 2005 when they had the js? certainly since that time we

have seen that there is a problem of homegrown radicalization and domestic jihad is in this country is not on within the prison while it certainly on the outside and the community. just as you can have a homegrown jihadists in any city or any location or state in this country, the same insert a true in any penal institution. state or federal throughout the united states. they are not mutually exclusive. they're part of the same overall evolving threat in my opinion. >> would you like to respond to? >> i think you saw in 2009 where we had a huge ramp up in homegrown terrorists. we at 85 individuals involved in 13 plots. that signaled a trend that we had. i think in the prison system we are beginning to establish collection mechanisms for this phenomenon. but they are not widespread yet and i think when we do put the systems in place we will see what we've seen on the outside inside prisons. it is still low-volume but the

issue is high consequence, very high consequence and high intensity for america if we don't address this problem. i think we're on the front end of this problem right now. >> thank you. >> i would agree with mr. downing. my bottom line, prisons are infertile grounds for radicalization. think of the case of kevin james. what's not clear is if kevin james happened outside a prison, whether or not he would've had the same orientation and been much more cable of acting on that i think that's likely to be the case. >> i would like to address that point having prosecuted the case. the issues we have with kevin james is that he orchestrated this jihad is plot to target jewish persons in southern california and united states united states personnel. he quarterback the plot. so the reality is the danger wasn't what he was inside or outside the prison, from prison the key take away from the cases

that from prison who is able to set up and set out the operational cell of would be jihad is in the streets of southern california. there could be no question in my mind after his commitment to wage that jihad based on the evidence in the case. >> i would like to go further on that. with respect to the organization and the ability to operate, a book later this jihad talk about the future of the 21st century jihad is that it lacks leaders or lacks organizational structure for operation. when you plug into a prison system that has an ability to communicate, ability to send messages, ability to operate beyond the prison wall, it's like a usb smart. he just has to plug his flash drive right into it and he can operate it. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i don't have any time left, but thank you for holding this important and necessary thing. appreciate it. >> before i recognize ms. clark,

conducted a site visit to the super max facility in colorado. during the visit the chaplain of the facility provided to staff a six page lives cataloging all the nation of islam videos, housed in the library. includes titles of 305 videos, vast majority of which -- according to the prison officials often these videos are shown to inmates as part of the institutions islam its service. i'm asking enhanced can set the document include in the record. however, of course the doctor is designated as law enforcement says it i would be -- to the hearing record with regards to its sensitivity. without objection, so ordered. i recognize my friend from new york, from brooklyn which is come up in this debate. long before ms. clark was

around, i recognize the gently for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our panelists for bringing her expertise here on this very important topic. i share some of the sentiments that you heard from my colleague on this site of the aisle, and i will share with you where i'm having a bit of difficulty. it has to do with the definition of terrorism, and i understand the specific terrorism that we're talking about with regards to radical islam your country and. in the purview of this committee which is homeland security over all. my concern is that we don't minimize the terrorism that many communities face due to gangs in this nation. and in some of the response that i have heard, it kind of made it seem as though garden-variety gang activity does not translate

into terrorism. and i'd like us to not lose sight of that, while understand the purview of this hearing, for us to minimize what happened. i mean, war on drugs, which is the purview of homeland security if we don't see these criminals enterprises as undermining our nation. so i'd like to assert that because i think that there is some convergence in a prison culture that breeds the type of challenges that we see in our civil society, whether it is the radicalization of an individual through a religious means common or through a violent organized family crime means. i would like us not to lose sight of that because i think it's going to be important that we address it comprehensively in

our pursuit of thwarting any types of radicalization that comes from those individuals who are practicing islam, as you stated. my question to you would be, what percentage of individuals have you been able to identify at this stage? i don't know if there's any national movement to identify individuals who are likely given their profile of activity that would be inclined to get involved in some sort of international plot. mr. dunleavy? >> i don't think you could put a number on it. i would say it's a very select, small group. again, we mentioned the senate

report what it said there's as many as 36 ex-inmates in yemen and training. how many ex-inmates either in society? is probably hundreds of thousands. so there's only 36. we're looking at a filtering process. the jihad is only needs one to strap a bomb and blow up into great the most damage. numbers is kind of a misnomer in trying to understand the situation. >> let me say then that if it only takes one, would we find some parallels then the massive gang recruitment, and the taking of life over time in various communities? the numbers of individual families, communities that have been disrupted, how do we balance out i guess our

mentality around the difference between someone who can be one single solitary act and wipeout 3000 people, say, a new york? or that ongoing killing that is taking place by individuals who have been formerly incarcerated that continue to recruit in communities around the nation? >> there's no question that gangs pose a serious danger to communities. however, there is a big distinction. i come from los angeles. it is known as the gang capital of the united states were we have 60-70% of the home side were gang related. there's no doubt that occurs. the distinction and the difference is when you hear people refer to gangs as urban terrace, it's not terrace in the sense that we know terrorists in that their intent is not to target innocent civilians are wage war on our country. innocent civilians occasionally get hit by gunfire but that's not -- >> occasionally? >> that's not the target. that's not their intent.

it's usually about territorial imperative, about controlling narcotics, it's about maintaining their gain status in dictionaries and neighborhoods. >> i would be too differ. let me just close, because if we see this ross s. as i said community issue then we lose the point that these are americans, right? this is an american threat. and i think that we've got to reorient ourselves if we're going to combat comment get a handle on this type of activity in our nation. the types of dollars that we're spending fighting the war on crime, if we continue to see this is an isolated individual who ends up with collateral damage in a community, then we never really get to dealing with it adequately. mr. chairman, i just wanted to add, mr. rigell, asked our panel

is whether the prison yard of the super max prison in california was monitored. and i would like to ask, mr. chairman, if you would join us in a letter to really get to the bottom of whether, in fact, the response we received with that is accurate as it should have been. >> show me the letter and i will certainly consider signing it, absolutely. >> thank you. >> members on this side are as concerned, without i recognize the distinguished gentleman, one of our leading members of the freshman class. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for having this hearing. inviting such distinguished panelist. i want to take the opportunity to thank the administration for working with you on this issue. they recognize the radicalization process. according to a website, new story today that the obama administration has been working with you to address this issue

and it note secretary napolitano is setting up a task force to look into radicalization in prisons. so it's a real issue. it's amazing we can talk about gang activity in prisons but it seems to be off limits to talk about radicalization within the prisons when it comes to the muslim community. i'm reminded as i look around this committee room, and i invite all the guest today to look at the pictures on the wall. remember that we are fighting as a nation and ideology that really seeks to overthrow us as a nation, that attacks the freedoms we have here in this country. and so, and with that i'll get into my line of questioning here. the 9/11 commission report recommended the u.s. government's efforts to communicate be as strong as they were in combating closed societies during the cold war. ronald reagan once said the ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs or rockets but a test of wills and

ideas. a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the police we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated. i'm concerned about the distribution of radical materials within the prisons and the mosque, and if we continue to allow the jihadists literature to propagandize the hearts and minds of american people in the mosque and in the prisons with their extremist ideology we will not succeed in today's current test as reagan said, wills and ideals. my question really revolves around that distribution of the material. i could go on and talk about the middle east forum which did a poll that looked at the jihad is based literature, the presence of violent type of literature within those prisons and in the mosque. but that would take a little while to go into all the percentages. but it's very evident and i would be glad to provide that to the panelists. so my question i guess is that

mr. smith, can you explain the challenges, that correction officials face from extremist literature being introduced in the present environment? and a follow-up to that, are all these matters protected by the first amendment, if you could explain that? >> this is america and we have a first amendment and we have the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. and so you have two different issues that you are dealing with the outside and then you're dealing with the prisons. prisons because of security reasons will have a stricter environment. i will leave it to prison officials or those with experience inside the correction department to talk about those challenges. i look at it from and investigate standpoint, and if an individual in a correctional institution possesses these types of radical material, it's in a way an investigative benefit because that person is then self identifying as someone who bears further inspection and someone that can be monitored by the correctional staff. the reality just possessing a cd

with anwar al-awlaki's sermon on them is not a crime. and so while it can be monitored and restricted because of the present environment, we have to look at it in an overall situation as potentially behavioral indicator that we may have someone that is on that path to radicalization and present a security threat. and that may bear further inspection and further monitoring. >> do you not agree that the presence of that material and along with louis farrakhan sermons entitled which one -- would you not agree that they don't bleed down the path of some of the radicalization behavior? >> i'm not going to make that brought a statement i make prosecutors so i take a look at evidence and facts. so i'm not going to get a policy, a broad policy opinion as to what that can or cannot

signify. i do think with respect to radical, violent radical jihadists literature, while it is not a crime in and of itself to possess, can be a behavioral indicator that something that we need to inspect. i have to leave my answer at that. >> and the remaining timing of the dashing any other panels like to comment? >> on the other side of the coin we should create opportunities for the pure good part of this to be in the religion, such as the ngos. there's an ngo by the name -- who does progressive values. this is what they say. values guided by 10 principles of islam. rooted in islam including social equality, separation of freedom and state, gay rights, critical analysis, interpretation. she and her organization have been trying to get into prison system to give this literature,

that's written by an islamic academic scholars. so i think there could be more efforts on this front as well. >> if i could say something about the literature, you can look in new york state and you can see literature sent from a company located in falls church virginia connected to the mosque were a lock he attended, and also they have been selling his literature. it makes its way into prison but you can look and see literature mailed directly from saudi arabia into inmates in your state. you can see literature sent from tehran, iran sent directly to inmates in need of state but the problem is the media review committee that is supposed to look over the literature. one of the persons that sits on in the review committee is the chaplain. so it can get back to the chaplain is not properly vetted, who is watching this? who's looking at this literature of? >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i will start with a simple question, but we talked about our prison system and in louisiana had the privilege of being chair of judiciary which we are jurisdiction over our prison. would you say that the population of the overwhelming population in our prisons affected the overcrowded and all those things is a hindrance to effective enforcement and monitoring of inmates and really allows for things to go unnoticed, things we talked about conducting and organizing a terrorist plot from prison, but we also have reaching out and intimidate witnesses, killing witnesses. so do you think that the overcrowded population in prisons, therefore breeds that type of activity because we don't have the resources to

monitor effectively? >> i think if you talk to prison administrators their number one goal is to manage the system, manage the system reduces all non-staff, reduce the assault on inmate to inmate, so that's the first priority. they are not looking at the individual who could be a good inmate but is also a jihadists. is well behaved, he doesn't cause a problem so why would you look at that. you're looking for the assault, looking for the drug dealer, you're looking for somebody who's doing that. >> the question is are we spreading our resources too thin when we have overcrowding in our prison systems to effectively monitor the things that we are talking about? >> we may have to many inmates. there's been a tremendous buildup in prison population the last 25 years. there's also been a sharp increase in crime that can be a triple to the build but we may be at that point where reductions and inmate

populations, would not increase the crime rate, and prisons become more manageable at that point. but i think the key thing, the thing driving all this is good leadership and management. and that is improved tremendously in the last 20 years. spent the next question i think, mr. dunleavy who mentioned are maybe a minute in mr. smith, who talked about the issue of we are dealing with today is exponentially greater you and i guess my numbers show that we had 16,000 murders in the united states the united states in a way, 15,000 in oni. so as we talk about the number of murders that conquers woman clark talked about, i just hope that we are not being defensive -- desensitized to the victims of murder in the united states as opposed to who they are. now you see it in newspapers and

print all across the country to make us feel better about it. we always say he was the intended target. he may not have lived the right life. and what was alluded to earlier of the fact that when we talk about the crime, we talk about the terrorism, depending on the definition that you use, that's one of my concerns. because where i am and in most urban cities, mass distractions are from ak-47s, and all those assault weapons that are able to harm a lot of people at one time which includes innocent victims. so i would just want to stress that we don't let the victims and their perceived lifestyle or actual lifestyle desensitize as to the fact that 15,000 people were murdered in the country last year. but i thank you all for what you do and i think what you're doing is incredibly important i think this is an important issue. i think radicalization and what we're doing in our prison system should be a concern. it is a homeland security concern when you talk about what happens when they get out.

let's take louisiana. we released 15,000 people every year. 50% go back. that 7500 crimes we know will be committed. so to the extent that we can do anything on the front end to prevent those 7500 times that we know are gone to happen, then i think that's something we can also look to to work with our prison system's to make sure we're just as effective. so no matter what the data of the hearing is, it doesn't concern me. what concerns me is the result that comes out of it, and that's what's important or even opening myself up to a lecture from my chairman on what the democrats did or didn't do the last four years. i think the message that was given the last election, let's look forward, let's continue to work. thank you all for what you do. hopefully we can broaden the conversation to make sure that people get out, we reduce the recidivism rate to make sure people coming out of prison, no matter who they are, what

religion or race or anything else are not being threats to our hard-working american citizens. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. his time has expired. now moving forward we go to the gentleman from alabama, mr. roger. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank all of you for your testimony. it's been very helpful, a very productive hearing. mr. dunleavy, to your knowledge to extremist groups in foreign governments sponsor the travel of imams and release prisoners to countries such as saudi arabia and yemen? >> i do know that foreign governments have provided funds for new york state chaplains, islamic chaplains to travel to saudi arabia. how that money specifically made its way to the public servant, i believe what through an islamic organization within the united states. i don't think it was a check directly from the saudi bank right to imam so-and-so.

with respect to the inmate to travel overseas, that's a little bit more elusive. i know of an individual who went from new york state to an islamic center in florida, and then from there as soon as his parole supervision was released he jumped off three different flights to egypt and saudi arabia and then to yemen. where the funds came for that is cloudy. >> this would be for mr. dunleavy as well as mr. smith, is it true that members of at least three domestic terrorist plots, virginia paintball plots all had contact with prisoners in your prison system? >> yes, it is. in the lackawanna case their individual threats tied to the lackawanna six who were also visiting inmates and taking phone calls from inmates in new york state. with respect to the virginia case and with respect to the or gone?

no, of inmates and the islamic clergy i believe were found on hard drives by those individuals. >> i'd like to ask each one of you briefly to answer this. what would you individually like to see become the work product that results from this hearing? start with you, professor. >> well, i think the first thing is the hearing is something i agree with -- >> but other than raising awareness, obviously the chairman has done a good job with this. but i would think you all would look at statutory changes, some -- >> i think one thing is more than just awareness, we need specific knowledge and practices. and i think we have conversation about this that no anecdotes, no isolated incidents, what we don't have is a general overview. we don't have sufficient

information on practices, and i think that would be very good if the committee would move in that direction. >> so some sort of a study. mr. downing. >> i agree. i think an assessment of what is in place at this time of the regulations and policies to support that assessment would be helpful and then create a blueprint and a roadmap of the way ahead. a credited qualified, they did spiritual advisers, a process to do that. where it's about contemporary america, not about the middle east. they are creating universities across the nation to train american imams in the context of what it is to have an american muslim identity. that's important. material that comes in to the institution is critically important. prevention of violent radicalization. and then better monitoring of meetings to ensure they are meetings and not a ruse for some of the type of activity.

>> i would tackle the sentiments of both these gentlemen. i think what needs to be done from a state correctional institution in the 50 states of the united states of america, an assessment of what type of investigative and intelligence sharing apparatus that exists among the institutions in each of those states on this issue needs to be assessed. that's ground zero. and once that assessment is done, a panel of people that have the experience and the know-how the able to produce a document that might be best practices that should be followed by these institutions so we can monitor the threat and prevent any particular violent attacks on the outside of these prison walls. >> mr. dunleavy, you're batting cleanup. >> well, i think the first thing i did it easier to recognize that it is a viable threat. and i think again going with my colleagues, the collection, the

methodology and the collection of data have to be standardized so that we can look across the board, so that new york, the way new york is recording its conversion or the way new york is recording its visitors or its literature is the same as california, florida, illinois. that have to be standardization in data collection. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. >> let me thank all the witnesses. i think it's been a terrific hearing, all of you, all four of you gave extreme guy the testimony. i think mr. rogers questioned at the and of set the tone. we have to assemble information, documentation so we can get positive results from the hearing. as far as setting some sort of standardization. so i want to thank you for your testimony. we will ask you to respond to questions in writing if you will. the hearing record would hope that held open for 10 days, and without objection this hearing stands adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate continues work today on an economic development bill. several amendments are pending unrelated to that measure. at 2:00 eastern senators will vote on two of them. the house is working today on agriculture department spending for the next budget year. that includes food stamps and nutrition programs for children and senior citizens. you can see the house debate on c-span right now. live coverage sent here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. todays' opening prayer will be offered by reverend don duncan, oklahoma jail and prison ministries and oklahoma county sheriff's office. the guest chaplain: let us pray.

father, as we pause to seek your divine guidance, i pray for your presence, wisdom and divine protection to be bestowed upon each senator, their families, their staffs and all those who have committed their lives in service to our country. i pray your guidance through eternal principles in all discussions and final decisions. i pray for that which is honorable both in your sight and in the heart of each citizen. when a conclusion is reached, may peace abide throughout this chamber and throughout this land. we pray this through the name of jesus. amen. the presiding officer: join me in reciting the pledge. of al legiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the

clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 16, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of s. 782, which is the economic development act. there's four hours of debate on the feinstein and mccain amendments. at about 2:00 p.m. there will be two roll call votes in relation to the feinstein and mccain amendments. each amendment will have a 60-vote threshold. mr. president, i'm happy to see republicans opening up to what democrats have been saying all along. cutting wasteful subsidies to big oil should be on the fable we're going to reduce the deficit. yesterday my friend, the senior senator from tennessee, said he would consider ending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies making record profits.

i congratulate my friend, the senior senator from tennessee. democrats agree, handouts like these to companies that make $36 billion in the first quarter of this year alone must be part of the discussion as we get to -- if we're going to get our fiscal house in order. as we decide where to cut, we'll need to make some tough choices. but not every choice has to be difficult. we're serious about reducing spending, ending tens of billions in taxpayer giveaway, big oil companies shouldn't be one of the difficult decisions we have to make. when the other side says the alternative is to end medicare, slash medicaid, put millions of seniors at risk, the choice is that much clearer. we cannot take with one hand those who can least afford it and give with the other hand those who can. before we end medicare as we know it, eliminate medicaid funding for nursing homes as republicans have proposed, we

should cut wasteful spending. during the course of a year one in five americans will be on medicaid. the cuts republicans propose affects real people. the elderly man in the nursing home, for example, a child missing her yearly checkup as an example. a pregnant woman as an example whose baby depends on prenatal care. or, for example, a person with a disability who is able to live alone thanks to the helping hand medicaid provides. these cuts will affect you too. cutting medicaid simply shifts costs. it doesn't lower costs. each patient who doesn't get the care he needs or she needs from a doctor today will get it tomorrow at three times the price in an emergency room. and you and i will foot that bill. the american people have spoken loudly and clearly. they do not want to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, children and disabled. i'm glad to see at least one of my republican colleagues

courageously breaking from the pack. would the chair now announce morning business. or whatever the -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 782, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 38, s. 782, a bill to amend the public works and e.d.a. aoefd 1965 -- and economic development administration to reauthorize that act. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be four hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the leaders or their designees, on the amendment offered by the senator from california, mrs. feinstein and the senator from arizona, mr. mccain. roeupl noting there is one -- mr. reid: noting there is no

one on the floor, i would ask that a quorum call begin with the time being equally divided. the presiding officer: kau kaufplt the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i terrorize speak on -- the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum call. mrs. feinstein: i ask

unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. i rise in support of the ethanol subsidy and tariff repeal act which senator coburn and i are offering as an amendment to pending legislation. the other cosponsors on this amendment are senator webb and senator collins. this is identical to a bill that we have submitted. and on that bill, there are more cosponsors. they are coburn, cardin, webb, corker, lieberman, collins, shaheen, burr, risch, and toomey. and so i wanted to have the record straight that this amendment is in response to a bill which we have crafted. on tuesday, the senate voted on the proposal, but unfortunately we saw a process battle which i spoke to on the floor, which i

think overwhelmed in some respects the debate. that is not the case today. there are ongoing negotiations to see if it's possible to put together a solution which can bring all sides together on this amendment that we will be voting on at 2:00. thus far we do not have an agreement. however, at least one of our cosponsors of this has said to me -- this is senator webb -- that he would very much appreciate a straight up-or-down vote on coburn-feinstein so that we know exactly where the senate stands. it is still possible even after that cloture vote that if we can reach a successful conclusion to the negotiation that we could have another vote and change that. today this is really the first vote that the senate has taken based on the merits of repealing

the ethanol subsidy and tariff. and in a nutshell, let me give you the reasons. i know of no other product in the united states of america that has a triple crown of benefits. there is a mandate oil companies must buy this ethanol. there is a subsidy oil companies are paid for buying this substance. and this substance known as corn ethanol is protected by a protective tariff which prevents other nations like brazil from importing ethanol which actually has more beneficial environmental effects. as a matter of fact, corn ethanol is the least environmentally proficient ethanol. everything else is better than

corn. cellulosic is better. algae is better. shoe tkpwar is better. and -- sugar is better. and all kinds of new ethanol are being tasted -- being tested. so the bottom line is we have a triple crown of subsidy, mandate and protective tariff on the least effective environmentally sound ethanol there is. now, more importantly, this is now used to such an extent that it is having a major impact on food commodity prices, and in particular, on feed prices. and this is particularly true in the poultry industry. and i will get to that in a few minutes. i do want to thank senators klobuchar and thune for good-faith efforts to try to reach a promise. this compromise, at least from my point of view, must save

substantial revenue for the debt and deficit for the treasury and eliminate wasteful ethanol subsidies and tariffs. so this, these negotiations have been ongoing since tuesday. we have not yet reached an agreement. and so a vote at 2:00 will not end these talks. i'm perfectly willing to continue to talk. but i do think that it is important that we have a clean up-or-down vote on the 0 coburn-feinstein amendment. the issue at hand is a simple issue. the subsidy given to these oil companies cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year, and the tariff actually has the effect of making us more dependent, not less dependent, but more dependent on foreign oil. let me explain. in 2005, the ethanol subsidy cost taxpayers $1.5 billion. this year that number is nearly

$6 billion. so it's gone in six years from a cost of $1.5 billion to a cost of nearly $6 billion. there is a reason for it, and i'll goat that in a moment. -- and i'll get to that in a moment. since 2005 the total cost of this subsidy is $22.6 billion. here is the increase every year. $1.5 billion, 2006, $2.6 billion. 2008, $4.4 billion. 2009, $5.2 billion. 2010, $5.7 billion. and the all-time high in these last two years of $5.7 billion. however, it continues to rise and the proposals that have been made for an extension to 2015 by

some would cost another $31 billion. so, ladies and gentlemen of the senate, this is a very, very costly trifecta of benefits. now, let me be clear, the subsidy is wasteful and duplicative. it does very little to promote the use of ethanol, which oil companies already must use under current law. the renewable fuels standard dictates oil companies to use 14 billion gallons of biofuels this year, 20.5 billion by 2015 and 36 billion by 2022. so you see, this is by law now increasing every year, and it goes from 14 this year, and it more than doubles by 2022.

and that doubling is what's going to cost the 36 -- well, going to be $36 billion at the cost i indicated. and yet, we pay oil companies to follow the law. now let me speak briefly about the tariff. the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports makes our nation actually more dependent on foreign oil. the tariff acts as a trade barrier, placing clean sugar cane ethanol imports from friendly nations at a competitive disadvantage to oil imports from opec. this discourages imports of low carbon ethanol from our allies and leads to more oil and gasoline imports from opec countries which enter the united states tariff-free. so you've got a high tariff on

ethanol coming in, and you have a very low tariff on oil. sugar cane ethanol, which suffers from this tariff, is the lowest carbon fuel that is widely available. so the tariff makes no sense, and it should be repealed. and i believe that that is one thing where there is very strong consensus in this body. the ethanol subsidy and trafr repeal act repeals the 45 cent per gallon ethanol use subsidy known as the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit. people say veetc and everybody is supposed to know what veetc is. it's the volumetric -- by volume -- ethanol excise tax credit. and the 54 cent-per-gallon ethanol tariff is effective july

1. so there are really two in there twaorbgs tariffs. -- two tariffs. those are two parts of the three-part triple crown of government support. refineries are required to use ethanol under the renewable fuels standard. the subsidy pays them to use that mandated ethanol. and ethanol, again, is protected by a very high tariff. now, i think we need to address this quickly because the effects are harmful and the costs are great. at highest risk are increased costs for feed, corn, and other food. today 39% of the united states corn crop is used to produce ethanol. that's according to the congressional research service. well over a third of the corn crop is used to produce ethanol. corn futures reached a record

$7.99 a bushel last week. so corn future prices are up $140% over 12 -- are up 140% over 12 months. you can see the rise $2 from 2:15 to 2006, going up over 2007, 2008, beginning to go down slightly in 2009, continues down in 2010. and then boom, 2010 to 2011, and 2011 to 2012, it has shot up. this is devastating, particularly to poultry farms all over the country, and i'll explain why in a moment. this is devastating to cattle. and this is devastating to food commodity prices as well. and it will continue to go up if we let this continue.

the annual average price of corn has risen 225% since 2006. so, from here to here there is a 225% increase in corn prices. now, does anybody think that's good for this nation? is it good for farmers who depend on corn feed? i don't think so. let me give you some examples. the annual feed costs for foster farms tripled over the past year, increasing costs by more than $200 million. that's greater than the firm's largest ever annual profit. zacky farms, which is a large farm, has lost $35 million over

the last three years due to increased corn costs. i want to read to you for a moment a summary of the impacts on zacky farms. here's the background. zacky farms is a family-owned vertically integrated producer of quality turkey products for consumers in the retail and food service markets. the company is 55 years old but has roots in supplying poultry products to consumers that reach back all the way to 1928. representing three generations of commitment to the business. zacky's employs over 1,000 employees, 1,000 employees, and supplies approximately 2% of the turkey consumed in the united

states. during the past three-plus years, the growing use of corn and ethanol has been nothing less than devastating on zacky farms. why? turkey feed costs represent about 60% of the cost of getting turkey products to the stores for consumers to buy. corn is roughly 50% of the turkey feed formulation, making corn one-third of the cost of a turkey. soybean meal, usually the second largest ingredient in turkey feed, competes for the same achage as -- acreage as corn and consequently the pricing of soybean meal often moves somewhat in tandem with corn. the government is sitting on acres and paying farmers not to plant them. thereby encouraging the rise in cost.

i didn't know that, that we are paying farmers not to plant soybeans. recent reports show that since 1990, there are essentially no new acres available. ethanol uses of corn is therefore driving up other turkey feed ingredient prices also. the increasing use of corn and ethanol, now nearly 40% of the nation's corn supply, has been a major factor in driving the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $4 to $6 and currently $7.75 a bushel. that's what zacky is currently paying. this dramatic increase has all occurred since the fourth quarter of 2006, just what i have been saying. the turkey industry has been unable to pass these cost increases along fast enough to maintain profitability.

now, mr. president, we were in the caucus on tuesday and we heard one senator talk about how a farm has actually collapsed because of these prices in his state, and a second senator reiterate his deep concern about what's happening to the poultry interest in his state. so this just isn't foster farms and zacky farms which happen to be in california. it is all over. and then they go into the impacts of important for ethanol on employees, suppliers, customers, consumers and family ownership, and they say they have suffered significant losses during the past three years, and it is estimated that that's that's $35 million in losses from 2008 to 2009 and 2010, and

that their banking relationships have been shattered after 60 years of banking. the bank of america told the company to find another bank. in 2008, the company was forced to implement across the board salary freezes and other measures to help control these costs. turkey prices have jumped dramatically and will continue to increase. in other words, so that the market is becoming such that turkey is going to become an endangered species, particularly in a down market. and that they have stopped promotions such as the thanksgiving free turkey with the purchase of a certain dollar amount and it goes on and on. so it's a very serious issue. let me give you another one. paul cameron is a commercial cattle feeder from the imperial

valley. he says my company employs 32 hard-working men and women. many of these employees are second and third generation to the livestock business. our cattle rely primarily on midwestern grown corn as their primary source for grain. this is the conflict here. this year, 41% of our nation's corn crop will be used by a heavily subsidized ethanol industry. in a year where nationally our grain inventories have already been reduced by adverse weather, corn has risen in price by 140%. because of this, any chance of profitability in all protein industries has vanished. the cattle industry, the inventory in our own operation is being reduced and we have become the -- we have begun the process of laying off many of our employees. coming from a county with 27.9%

unemployment -- that's april e.d.d. figures -- these good, hard-working people will be relegated to trying to find jobs where there are none. and these are the very people who take great pride in the fact that they not only feed a nation but they also feed the world. this is what this is doing. this is actual testimony read verbatim. then we have a letter from the american meat institute, california dairies, national chicken council, national cattlemen's beef association, national meat association, national pork producers council, national turkey federation. essentially saying the same thing. corn-based ethanol has distorted the corn market and stretched

corn supplies to the point production costs have increased significantly. dishly, the current import tariff on foreign sources of ethanol harms united states consumers by retarding the development of a robust and sustainable viable fuels market. that's a direct quote, and i would ask unanimous consent to put this testimony in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you. and then there is a whole list, a very long list in a letter to senators reid and mcconnell from a couple dozen agencies, both agricultural and environmental, and i would put those in as well. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: the western united dairyman's association and from the national cattlemen's beef association. the presiding officer: without objection.

mrs. feinstein: now, i do this, not because i want to run through it all but because i think it's evidentiary testimony of what is happening out there because of what is very bad and egregious public policy, and at a time of debt and deficit where we are looking to find a bipartisan solution which is going to be very, very difficult, and if we reach one have a dramatic impact on this nation. to continue a program which costs in the tens of billions of dollars makes no sense to me at all. this summer, experts are predicting a mass slaughter of hogs. the usda predicts that u.s. corn reserves will sink to their lowest level since the mid 1990's this summer, and rising food prices are contributing to global poverty and instability.

so we are faced with a vote today that is very simple. the vote says end this trifecta of subsidy, mandate and protective tariff, and it says don't wait for it to expire at the end of the year but do it as of absolutely 1, and if we do it as of july 1, we produce approximately $2.7 billion to the treasury to ameliorate debt and deficit. so this is, i think, an easy easy $2.7 billion to save. now, someone might say well, what are you doing to all of the producers of ethanol? shouldn't we protect them? well, this has been going on for a very long time, from 2005.

to have an industry develop that becomes dependent on this trifecta of subsidy, mandate and protective tariff is only going to increase costs. i understand beginning an industry with some help, giving them a leg up, giving them a toehold. a toehold becomes a foothold, and then they go on on their own. but what the ethanol industry wants is a continuation of the subsidy to the oil companies. oil companies, the most profitable industry in the united states. continue the subsidy to it, continue the mandate and continue to protect it. and you can be sure if we don't do this now and we wait for it

to end at the end of 2012, there will be a fight to continue it. well, we're all talking about saying no. we're all talking about that the time has come when we have to do business differently. and we have a lot of major problems out there and we have a lot of people that need help. would i rather help those people or would i help -- rather help big oil do essentially what they are mandateed to do anyway? the choice is easy. the choice is clear. would i want to continue a high protective tariff on the least environmentally friendly commodity which is corn ethanol. it's not even algae, it's not cellulosic, it's not sugar cane. it is the least environmentally

friendly production of ethanol. now, mr. president, i have opposed this from the beginning because i -- i'm not that prescient, to be honest with you, but i just knew that once we started this, it wasn't going to end, that once we started it, it was going to be more, more, more, and that's -- that's the ground beat, that's the sound beat. if we can settle it in the next few hours with a proposal that meets the strictures of both sides of this great institution, we are trying to do that, but there are people that strongly believe it should be ended quickly, and that's what this vote, this cloture vote this afternoon will show. we recognize it, we recognize that it can be blue slipped. however, it would be the first consequential vote of the united states senate to say that major

subsidies to oil companies to do what you were mandated to do has come to an end, and protective tariffs of the least environmentally friendly source of ethanol will come to an end, and they will come to an end in a timely way, which is what the government should be doing. so i would like to yield the floor at this time, and i would like to very much -- i know this has been tough. the big surprise to me has been how emotional our caucus on the democratic side has been, and i understand the other side's caucus, the republican side, was emotional as well. so this appears to be much more major than the legislation itself might send a signal of, but i am very hopeful that we will have 60 votes, which should send a very loud message from

the united states senate. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana is recognized. mr. coats: mr. president, thank you. i also want to say to the senator from california, many of the points that you have made are valid points. i came back here to -- for the purpose of addressing our overspending, and that involves all kinds of tax expenditures, it involves all kinds of subsidies. it's necessary because of our current debt situation, and debt situation we've got to get control of this. it's the only reason i ran. it's the only reason i'm back here, with a commitment from the people of indiana who supported me that, yes, this is what needs to be done in washington. and so i'm not here to criticize ask senator coburn's, senator

feinstein's and other's efforts to begin to address this. i think the senator's phrase this is what we are doing in a timely way goes to the essence of where i believe we ought to go. we have subsidized for, i think, some valid reasons early on, the production of ethanol, because we said we are -- we are not independent in terms of our energy production here. and our dependence on oeupl and particularly -- on oil and particularly middle eastern oil is not only costly to us in terms of opec setting the price of oil worldwide based on their output, but also on the fact that we spend a lot of money in blood and treasury to continue our dependence on that oil by the placing of troops in the middle east, by the engagements that they had. would anybody think that we

would pay nearly as much attention to the middle east as we are now were it not for the fact that the oil supply that comes there is absolutely necessary to, for our economy and the world economy? but we all recognize -- and i think everybody in this chamber would simply say that, yes, we want less dependence on foreign sources and more independence. and so the production of homegrown energy out of corn or other products that are grown in the soil and can be converted to a form of energy blended with oil so that we use less of middle eastern oil, more of our own resources to drive our trucks and to drive our cars and to fuel our planes, is a valid goal. now to get that started -- i wasn't here, but congress passed

a set of subsidies in order to encourage that industry. and on the basis of that, states, private entities, public-private partnerships committed to going forward with ethanol. we're at a point now where there is essentially agreement that this subsidy has to be phased out. the question -- and taken away. and the producers of ethanol agree. maybe it's a political reality. for whatever it is, as i spoke to ethanol producers across my state, i basically said we cannot continue this subsidy under our current situation of debt. and it has always been designed to become economically feasible. it would be related to the price of oil. well, the price of oil has gone up, and i think it gives ethanol

producers a more level playing field on this. the problem of that, that many of us from the midwest have -- i can only speak for myself, but many of us from corn-growing and ethanol-producing states -- and indiana is one of the leading states in the nation. we produce a significant percentage of ethanol -- is that this amendment basically says it's over now. we've come together around a transition proposal that senator thune has proposed, and i'm all for a straight up-or-down vote on which is the best way to rid ourselves or to decrease the dependence on this subsidy and to phase it out completely. i can't imagine that anybody here would think that as we

address tax code expenditures, that there wouldn't be a transition process in place for eliminating that expenditure for an industry or for an individual in the united states. i joined senator wyden, a democrat, in a bipartisan effort for a comprehensive tax reform. our proposal basically eliminates most of the tax expenditures that special provisions totaling almost $1 trillion, we eliminate that in a way to reduce rates, make our companies more competitive, lower individual rates, simplify the tax code. but we know that in doing so, there has to be a transition period. you just cannot yank away from the private sector or the public-private sector an economic basis on which they went forward and committed to that particular entity and

product. and so all we're really asking here for is a transition process. i know there's talk about, well, you know, we might give awe vote next week on this and so forth. i don't blame senator coburn or 0 senator feinstein one bit for using a procedural rule. actually senator feinstein did not do that, did not support that. and i think deserves a second vote. i don't fault senator coburn for using procedural methods which were, you know, maybe not necessarily something of precedent here but it is possible under our procedures to do what he did in order to get his vote on the floor. he's been asking for that for weeks, if not months. it is an issue we ought to be debating. but there ought to be a debate, an honest debate between essentially the two sides of this issue, both of which agree the subsidy ought to be removed,

one of which says we remove it today on this vote. the other one says we remove it over a period of time, three years or so, when we ramp it down and that we take the money that was immediately saved and donate it to reducing the deficit. but we take some of the money in order to transition away from the subsidy. and that's what senator thune is trying to do without getting into all the details, which i don't need to do. really what i'm here to do is to plead for an opportunity to debate both sides of this, to have two votes, winner take all. that's the way it works here. and the chips fall where they may. but at least we will have had an honest debate about two toeufs try to reach the -- about two alternatives to try to reach the same goal. one takes a longer period of time than the other. the senate will vote and the yeas will be yea and the nays will be yea and the yeas pill

prevail and we'll move forward on that basis. all we have now is maybe we will give you an opportunity to bring something up next week so we can vote on the phaseout program. some members will say, hey, this is great. i can vote for both and then i can go home and say, yes, we need to eliminate the subsidy. that's why i voted for senator coburn. then they can also say the following week i voted for senator thune. one of these should work. we've got it both ways. we should make a distinction between which way we want to go and what we want to do. i happen to choose for, i think, valid reasons that we ought to transition out of this because the enormous financial commitment that has been made on the part of ethanol producers in my state, because of the enormous benefit that, yes, has come to our agriculture sector that has grown a lot of corn and benefited from it and has paid a lot of taxes -- it's one of the few industries in america right now that is prospering, earning

revenue and paying taxes on that revenue and helping our economy grow, as is the ethanol industry. but to just yank it away from them right away because we say this has to be done right now without transition i don't think is fair to those who have made that commitment. does ethanol need to be economically viable to compete with other forms of energy? yes. did it need -- i wasn't here again -- but this body of congress, including the administration said it needed a head start so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oeufplt and they gave them that in the form of subsidies, in the form of a tariff, in the form of some credits. have we come to the point financially where we now need to look at this as well as hundreds of others, subsidies and tax expenditures, that we simply no longer can afford? and the answer to that is, yes, we've come to that point.

but is the best way to do this, particularly in this instance when there's more than just an interest in one company or two companies here that you find in so much of the tax code, but where there is a national security interest in this, where our military says our continued dependence on foreign sources of oil is a national security issue affecting our troops, affecting our expenditures, affecting our deployments where these people need to go to keep the sea lanes open, to keep the oil flowing and so forth. there is a national basis on which we need to have competing forms of energy that can lessen that dependence. and ethanol is one of those. yes, does it need to be economically viable? absolutely. how do we get there? we can get there by pulling the rug out from them now, shutting it down, see precipitous drops, drop in ethanol production because it's no longer

economically viable. or we can put in place, as senator thune has tried to do, and the coalition of us that support that, we can put in place a sensible way to reduce this subsidy to zero, to bring ethanol to a point of economic viability on its own, that can immediately send a significant amount of money to the, $1 billion to reduce the deficit, and can be part of the transition to allow ethanol to be an economically viable part of our ability to provide transportation energy without having to call up the middle east and say keep sending it, and by the way, we'll send our troops, we'll send our money, we'll send our treasury over because we have to have this to drive our economy. so i think there's a compelling reason to allow the thune amendment to be here on the

floor, debated and to give members an opportunity to debate and make their case on each side, take a vote and we'll let chips fall where they may. but we at least will have had the courage and honestly say this is where i come down and where i stand for and the voters can decide whether they like that or not like that. but i think it makes sense fringe an economic standpoint, it makes sense, just common sense that anybody who has been encouraged by this body to invest in this product to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to at least give them a chance to phase this thing down so they don't necessarily put a padlock on the retpaoeupbgs plants and basically say we're out of business. that doesn't akhaoeft goal the very reason that this body -- achieve the goal the very reason that this body put these enhancements and subsidies in place in the first place. conclusion: we need to phase out

this subsidy. there are other subsidies and other expenditures out there that we can eliminate now without having this kind of adverse economic effect and without having a negative effect on our national security. but this is not one of them. and so i urge my colleagues and i urge the leadership to allow the pleas of senator thune and others of us to be heard so that we have an honest debate, an honest choice, and then we accept the results. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and i believe suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is

recognized. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i would like to just briefly -- the presiding officer: the senator is notified that we're in a quorum call. mrs. feinstein: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you. i'd ask that i could briefly respond to the senator's comments. senator coats and i worked together on intelligence. i have great respect for him. i understand the regional issues involved in this. so i understand your thinking. my thinking is that we get a strong vote on this today. this is simply a cloture vote. we have 60 votes, we have some time to see if we can work something out. one thing i've learned in this whole line of pursuit is if you give your word, keep it. the only thing you have really is your integrity. and i gave you my word that we will continue to try with the participants to see if we can bring both sides together. i know this is a long journey,

and i know we'll be blue-slipped and we've got to come back and we'll have to have a bill that we can put a tax matter on. and that's for a later day. i think we're into this, and so many people want kind of a clean vote that if we have that, you know, i'm prepared to give you my word to continue to try to discuss this. my own view on these things is to do the very best you can, try to reach a compromise when issues are really like this and march on to the next thing, and this has become far harder than i anticipated, and i think, you know, we are relatively close to a solution, to a compromise. now, whether senator coburn will accept it or not, i don't know

but i know these discussions are going on, and all i can do is pledge you my best effort to try to get to something that satisfies everybody. i understand if you come from a large ethanol-producing state, i understand what this means. on the other hand, i also understand that this is going to be the first of many coming down the line that we've got to change the way we do business, that if we're going to carry out the mandate of a prudent government, we have got to make a lot of changes, and none of it is going to be easy, so we might as well get used to it now. but for whatever it's worth, you have my word that i will continue to try. mr. coats: if the senator would yield? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: i accept that fully. having had the opportunity to work with senator feinstein on

the intelligence committee, i don't hesitate for a second to accept her word and know that she will keep it. it's been a pleasure to work with her on that committee. we spend many hours behind closed doors discussing issues of great importance to this country, and she has provided great leadership in that effort. so i will look forward to working with the senator from california, accept fully her offer. hopefully we can find a good solution to this issue, and i couldn't agree with you more, senator feinstein, that this is the first of many things, tough decisions that we're going to have to make. if we're not flexible in making these decisions at this time of clear fiscal distress, we're going to be judged very harshly by the markets and by our constituents. they know we're spending too

much. they know we need to make decisions, some of which will be painful. trying to do this in a way that doesn't become draconian -- and i appreciate the words of the senator from california in terms of the willingness to sit down together and work this through. as you said, this will be the first of many, many difficult days ahead, but what is encouraging and ought to be encouraging to the american people is that there is a bipartisan commitment -- first of all, a bipartisan understanding of the plight that we're in. we wish we weren't here but we are, and a bipartisan understanding, a growing bipartisan understanding that working together is the only solution to this, because if it just -- if it becomes stalemate, we're doing a great disservice to the future prosperity of this country and its impact on future generations, including our current generation and the many, many people who are out of work, that need an economic recovery to take place sooner rather than

later. i thank the senator for her comments and look forward to working with her along with others in this the first of probably many difficult but important and necessary discussions. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: mr. president, i have eight unanimous consents for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: mr. president, i rise in support of the feinstein amendment that would eliminate at long last the subsidies for ethanol, corn-based ethanol in america, and i would ask my colleagues, in a little while we're going to have a chance to vote on this and i would ask them to support the feinstein amendment. i thank the leader for making time on the calendar so that we can vote on this issue, and i think that -- i hope that the majority will support this. i know we have a 60-vote

threshold and i would hope that we would be able to express at long last that it's time to eliminate this subsidy. this is an issue that has brought together an unusual and broad-based support among those that are seeking to eliminate this subsidy. we have taxpayer advocates who understand that this is a subsidy that taxpayers should not be underwriting. we have hunger and development organizations which recognize that the impact on ethanol by -- on the corn crop is affecting the affordability of food not only here but it's having a major impact around our entire country. we have agricultural groups including the maryland poultry growers and integrators who support the repeal of the subsidy for ethanol. that's because the poultry industry understands the impact that the ethanol subsidies are having on the poultry industry,

and i'll talk a little bit more about that. we have free market groups who say look, let the market work. there is no need here for us to interfere with the free market. we have religious organizations. we have environmental groups, and i'll talk a little bit more about that. that although ethanol was originally -- the subsidies was originally put on we thought for a positive environmental impact, it's having just the reverse impact because of the amount of energy that's necessary to produce ethanol has all the good that we thought was being done really has been lost. and then we have those that are budget hawks, that are saying look, they are being asked to do a lot of things to bring the budget into balance, a lot of hard decisions. why don't we at least eliminate these unnecessary subsidies in an interest to bring our budget more into balance? the wide range of interest groups supporting this issue have fostered wide bipartisan

support for repealing this credit for ethanol. so, mr. president, we have an opportunity here i think to bring together a lot of different groups to really work across party line, to start the process to bring our agricultural programs into better balance, to have a better energy policy, to help create jobs, and also to deal with our budget deficit. according to the g.a.o., this credit is -- and i quote -- is a wasteful and duplicative -- end quote -- federally funded support industry for an industry that already enjoys mandated market share under the renewable fuel standards. since 2006, the renewable fuel standards has required oil companies to blend increasing amounts of ethanol into our gasoline. so when we repeal this credit, when we repeal this break that the ethanol industry receives, it will not impact on the market

from the point of view of the amount of ethanol that will be available. especially during times of fiscal constraint, it simply does not make sense to continue giving billions of dollars to a robust and thriving industry in which american consumers see little benefit from. mr. president, we have a huge budget deficit. you understand that, i understand that. the people of ohio, the people of maryland understand that. we need to look at ways that we can bring the budget deficit down, repealing unnecessary subsidies should clearly be at the top of our list. with more than 40% of america's corn crop going into fuel, the increased demands have made feed extraordinarily expensive. let me share with you what i have heard from my poultry farmers on the eastern shore of maryland. the poultry industry is an

important part of the economic fiber of the eastern shore of maryland. it translates into jobs for people who live on the eastern shore of maryland, the poultry industry, extremely important. yet, the final largest cost factor for the poultry industry is the corn feed that goes in to producing the poultry, the chickens. with such a high cost factor, the arbitrary demand factor for corn as a result of ethanol has raised the price -- the cost of producing poultry in my state, costing us jobs. the elimination of this subsidy will help us maintain and expand jobs in the state of maryland and around the region. while corn-based ethanol may be a home-grown fuel, it has an

trem energy and water resource intense process to produce. so where we thought we were producing an energy source that would be favorable to our nation, it takes so much energy to produce the ethanol, at the end of the day, we have used imported energy to produce our own homegrown energy source and we don't benefit from a point of view of having energy independence here in america. energy savings are minimal when you take into consideration how much energy it takes to produce ethanol. and not to mention that ethanol burns less efficiently in our engines than regular fuel and the higher concentration. that means fewer miles per gallon, and as a result use more energy when we were trying to save energy. it doesn't make sense over the long term. a tax break from ethanol is a

gift to the oil companies and grain producers, a gift that actually harms american consumers and our environment. corn is a stable food commodity that is found in millions of american products from food additives to livestock feed. more than one-third of our nation's corn is now going into the production of ethanol. so, mr. president, this is causing a -- just a problem in our foodstock, the amount of important that goes into ethanol in america. it's time that we eliminate this arbitrary subsidy that's causing a disruption, making it more difficult for people to afford their basic products. the increased demand for corn is raising the price of everything from eggs to milk to soft drinks to chicken to breakfast cereals, and it's the american consumer that is being hit the hardest with these higher food prices.

using corn to make ethanol also harms our environment. once corn is harvested, it is costly and energy-intense process to turn it into ethanol fuel fit for commercial sale. we need to develop sustainable, renewable biofuels, those that are not derived from food-based commodities such as corn to make our nation less dependent on foreign energy sources. while i support developing the next generation of algae or schosk biofuels, i don't support providing billions of dollars for a fuel product that is driving up the cost, harming our environment, and doing little to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. it's time that we stopped subsidizing big oil to produce a fuel that will produce -- we can produce with or without an additional $6 billion a year of subsidies. so, mr. president, i hope my

colleagues will support the feinstein amendment that would eliminate this subsidy so that we can eliminate this unnecessary subsidy, help make food more affordable for the people of our nation, and help us develop an energy policy that really does make sense for america, that would help our security and help our economy. so, for all those reasons, i will support the feinstein amendment and urge my colleagues to do so and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: are we in a quorum call at the present time? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. corker: mr. president, i would like to ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak today on behalf of the coburn-feinstein amendment that we'll be voting on later. mr. president, it is rare that people in this country that are receiving a tax credit tell us, as servants of the united states, that they don't want the tax credit that they're receiving. i think that most people in this room are aware that we're spending about $6 billion a year

on something called a blenders' tax credit. it is my understand pg the blenders who receive this tax credit have shared with us that this is a waste of money and they'd like for this to end. so we have an amendment today at an especially fortunate time for us, at a time when we're having tremendous fiscal issues in this country -- we have an amendment before us today to do away with this tax credit, which seems to me to be only something of common sense. i think most people in america know that in congress years ago we passed a mandate that requires a certain amount of ethanol to be used in our country. and so this mandate already is in place. this mandate forces the use of certain numbers of gallons of ethanol in this country. but on top of that, our country is now paying 45 cents for every gallon that's blended. and those people who receive

this have told us that this is unnecessary, that it's a waste of taxpayer money, and that they do not want it. and so the coburn-feinstein amendment does away with this. it also does away with a tariff where importers who import ethanol in our country now pay a tariff which actually raises the price of ethanol -- actually raises what people are now paying at the pump because they have to pay a tariff to import this into our country; it does away with that tariff. so, mr. president, this is a very commonsense amendment. i certainly thank senator coburn and senator feinstein for offerings this amendment at a time when our country is in such financial straits. it's rare that we have something like this, again, that those people who actually receive this credit would like to do away with. i know it's been argued, mr. president, that at the end of this last year we all voted

for certain tax issues. that's an interesting argument, except that what happens at the end of the year, we do this en masse, and there are minor provisions within this package that we have no opportunity to take out. and so here this massive group of tax credits come to us. we have to vote up or down on a package of them that's huge, that has all kinds of tax provisions in it, and so there are some people in this room that have said, well -- or in this body that have said, well, but we just voted this in place. well, we vote add package in place, but many of us for years have argued that this tax credit is redundant, we've argued that it is a waste of taxpayer money, we've argued that with the mandate in place, there's absolutely no need for this, and the tariff that goes along with this, where we pay for imports

ethanol, we pay more for that because of this tairvetion is absolutely a burden to american -- because of this tariff, is absolutely a burden to american consumers and swlir certainly to american taxpayers. i thank the senators for offering this amendment of i look forward to supporting this amendment. this is one of those amendments -- sometimes we vote on things down here that candidly are rather mundane. this is one of those amendments that i not only support, i support with tremendous enthusiasm and energy, and i urge all those in the united states senate to support this very commonsense amendment that does something that is responsible for consumers in this country, that does something that is responsible for taxpayers in this country, and obviously will make our country stronger, if it passes. i have a sense it may. i urge those on the floor to please consider it, if they're now in the middle ground and haven't made a decision. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. thank you.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: i've spoken on this earlier in the week and i won't spend a great deal of time today. thanks to the majority leader, we're going to have two votes this afternoon on items that i think are representative of critical problems in our country. the first is a vote on an amendment by senator feinstein and myself that eliminates payments to the largest refining and oil companies in this country to blend ethanol which they have honestly admitted and sent awes letter and said they don't -- and sent us a letter and said they don't want. the second is on whether or not we'll subsidize with federal tax dollars additional pumps to use

ethanol. the reason the votes are important is because the way we get out of trouble as a nation is a couple of billion dollars at a time. we have a federal mandate that says "x" amount of fuel has to be blended with ethanol every year, and that's going to rise up to 22 billion gallons in 2015, so there's no reason for us to pay somebody to blend it when they already have to, and we've seen the shift in the industry from small entities to the very large. when this program started, it was about less than $1 billion in costs. it's now going to be on an annualized basis around $6 billion. and when we're running a $1.6 trillion deficit, we need every penny we can get. and so i'm thankful that this has been brought up. but it begs the larger question.

actually, there's two. one is: can we trust markets, real markets, to work more effectively than washington mandating and dictating policies? throughout our history, if you look at it in total, no government can ever do any allocation of scars resources as well -- of scarce resources as well as a market can. the markets aren't perfect. they make mistakes, they cause occasional shortages. but overall in the long run markets work much better than bureaucratic soviet style of what we'll do and what price we'll pay for it. we send $225 billion every year for oil, liquids and natural

tkpwaut. we're -- and natural gas. we're the only nation in the world where our resources are owned by the citizens and our own government limits our ability to utilize them. c.r.s. just finished a study that shows that the oil and gas reserves in the united states are greater than that of saudi arabia, china, and canada combined. so the question is, why aren't we using ours rather than sending money overseas and undermining our own economy and not creating jobs? the projections are if we would truly utilize our resources, we could create close to 190,000 jobs a year in the exploration and energy business. without subsidies, without tax credits, that's what would be the result. and when oil is near $100 a barrel and we continue to send

the money out of the country instead of go after our own resources, which are plentiful, we have to ask the question: what are we doing? the final point i'll make is when you go and buy ethanol-blended gasoline and you look at the price and you see here's regular gasoline that has no ethanol in it and here's ethanol blended gasoline that is about 20 cents or 25 cents cheaper, it is important the american people understand is you need to add $1.72 to that to get the real price you're paying for that blended gasoline because that is what your government has put in to the pipeline in the way of loans, grants, subsidies, and taxes on imported ethanol. so even though it looks cheaper, it's not. it's about $1.40 more when you look at all the costs that have been taken from you as a taxpayer, put into the pipeline

and then given to the special interests in terms of what we'll have and where we'll have it and when we'll have it. i support ethanol as an alternative fuel, especially now that it has 7.5% of our market. but the best way for ethanol to -- for america to survive is to stand on its own two feet, without spending something we don't have to get something we're going to have anyway. i'm thankful to senator reid and i'm very thankful to senator feinstein. she opposed this when it started and she recognizes that what we've actually done is really not help ourselves that much. we have markedly increased the cost of food. we can say it isn't, but 40% of the corn crop this last year went for ethanol, and corn i