Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Jun 13th, 2011 :: 3:10:05 to 3:40:45
Total video length: 5 hours 2 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:824 Duration: 0:30:40 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Chuck Grassley

3:10:03 to 3:10:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: senator from mr. grassley: mr. president, tomorrow afternoon we're going to be voting on senator amendment dealing with ethanol. so i come to the senate floor at this time to expre opposition to that amendment. senator coburn's amendment would

Chuck Grassley

3:10:05 to 3:40:45( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley

Chuck Grassley

3:10:25 to 3:10:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: raise the tax on domestic energy production. it would do this by repealing an incentive for the use of homegrown renewable fuel called ethanol. with conflicts in the middle east and crude oil more --

Chuck Grassley

3:10:50 to 3:11:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: priced at $100 a barrel or more, and domestic biofuels should be on the same side. let me make that clear once again. we have middle east problems. we have crude oil priced at over

Chuck Grassley

3:11:12 to 3:11:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: $100 a barrel. oil interests and biofuel interests, if both are domestically produced, should be on the same side of the energy issue. why would anyone prefer less domestic energy production?

Chuck Grassley

3:11:35 to 3:11:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: in other words, why would anyone prefer importing more oil over domestically produced energy, whether it's fossil fuel or whether it's renewable? we should all be on the same side of more domestically produced energy. the tremendous cost of america's

Chuck Grassley

3:11:56 to 3:12:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: dependence on foreign oil has never been more clear. i support drilling here and drilling now. i support renewable energy. i support conservation. i support nuclear energy. and the reason i support different forms of energy and

Chuck Grassley

3:12:18 to 3:12:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: why we have to support more energy, if you're going to have an expanding economy to create more jobs, you're obviously going to use more energy. and remember, i included conservation in my, in my energy program.

Chuck Grassley

3:12:41 to 3:13:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: so, the attacks on domestic energy is really quite a remarkable thing happening right now when gasoline is $4 a barrel and we're spending $385 million -- or i should say $835 million a day importing oil.

Chuck Grassley

3:13:03 to 3:13:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: so, whether it's oil or whether it's renewable energy, we shouldn't be fighting each other over any source of domestic energy. we should be fighting together against opec and these foreign dictators and oil sheiks, some

Chuck Grassley

3:13:24 to 3:13:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of them that hate the united states, from holding our economy hostage. the author of the amendment has argued that the production of clean homegrown ethanol is fiscally irresponsible. it's important to remember that

Chuck Grassley

3:13:48 to 3:14:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the incentives exist to get producers of ethanol to compete in the foreign industry. have a level playing field for all forms of energy. the oil industry has been well supported by the federal treasury for more than a century. the senator from oklahoma, the sponsor of the amendment, has touted with much fanfare a

Chuck Grassley

3:14:09 to 3:14:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: letter from oil companies that say they don't need or want the credit. it's my understanding that many of the oil refiners are no longer in the business of downstream ethanol blending and subsequently do not pay the

Chuck Grassley

3:14:31 to 3:14:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: excise tax on gasoline and do not benefit from the credit. now isn't it really easy to be advocating repeal of something when you don't benefit from it? it's even easier to advocate for its repeal when doing so would undercut your competion. it -- it shouldn't surprise anyone

Chuck Grassley

3:14:52 to 3:15:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that the oil refineries and big oil are advocating a position that would reduce the competitiveness now that they have from the renewable ethanol. refineries enjoy a cozy monopoly on our nation's transportation fuel.

Chuck Grassley

3:15:13 to 3:15:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: they oppose the renewable fuels standard because it cuts into their monopoly. alternatively, if the members of the national petro chemical and refiners association say they don't want or don't need the credit, then it's pretty simple: just don't take it. it's a tax credit which they

Chuck Grassley

3:15:35 to 3:15:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: must apply for in the first place, and they apply for it to the internal revenue service. if they don't want it and they don't need it, they shouldn't file for that credit with the internal revenue service. i would be glad to work with the senator from oklahoma in getting the members of the national

Chuck Grassley

3:15:57 to 3:16:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: petroleum and refiners association to return the credit to the federal treasury. no one is forcing them to take the credit. since they seem eager to return it, perhaps senator coburn and i can work together to get them to return it. if you like tight gasoline

Chuck Grassley

3:16:20 to 3:16:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: supplies and if you like $4 gasoline, join the campaign led by big oil and the national pet petro chemical and refiners association, but if you want less dependence upon foreign oil and more use of home-grown renewable fuels, support ethanol producers.

Chuck Grassley

3:16:42 to 3:17:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the fact is a portion of the -- the portion of the industry that blends ethanol and sells it to the consumers supports maintaining this credit. i refer to an organization called the society for independent gasoline marketers of america, or they go by the

Chuck Grassley

3:17:03 to 3:17:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: name sigma. that organization recently wrote to senate majority leader and minority leader opposing efforts to prematurely and abruptly eliminate the blenders credit, and i would quote from their

Chuck Grassley

3:17:25 to 3:17:45( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: letter -- "on behalf of our client, the society of independent gasoline marketers of america, i write to you to oppose efforts in congress to prematurely and abruptly eliminate the veetc -- that's the ethanol blenders credit.

Chuck Grassley

3:17:46 to 3:18:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: increasing the tax paid on ethanol-blended gasoline makes no sense at a time when consumer fuel prices are already high and the need to maximize domestic energy sources is so very critical. very true at the time when gasoline is $4 a barrel.

Chuck Grassley

3:18:09 to 3:18:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: now, this organization, sigma, their members account for 37% of the petroleum retail market. sigma works to promote competition in the marketplace to help keep consumer fuel costs down. now, this is contrary to the

Chuck Grassley

3:18:31 to 3:18:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: position of oil refiners who prefer no competition. i have further words from that letter. this incentive has been extremely useful tool in helping the nation's fuel marketers and chain retailers deliver fuel to

Chuck Grassley

3:18:54 to 3:19:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the market at a competitive price. continuing to quote, by providing long-term price competitiveness for ethanol-blended fuels, veetc also helps provide assurances to marketers and retailers that important infrastructure

Chuck Grassley

3:19:15 to 3:19:35( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: investments necessary to deliver these fuels will continue to provide returns and not result in wasted improvements. a further quote, sigma opposes moves to prematurely or abruptly end the subsidies without any

Chuck Grassley

3:19:36 to 3:19:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: consideration for future fuel or fuel delivery costs. to end this incentive immediately would no doubt result in an immediate spike in consumer fuel costs. and then the last paragraph, i quote -- "sigma believes that a policy that provides an

Chuck Grassley

3:19:58 to 3:20:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: effective transition for the industry from the current tax structure is a better alternative to slash and cut budget strategy being promoted by some members of congress." so there you hear from another segment of the industry. i would ask unanimous consent to

Chuck Grassley

3:20:19 to 3:20:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: put in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: the senator from oklahoma also mentioned the total cost of the blenders credit as a reason for supporting repeal of veetc. he claimed that the american people will have spent

Chuck Grassley

3:20:40 to 3:21:00( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: spent $32 billion on this credit over the past 30 years. now, that may be the case. again, i don't believe we should be debating ethanol incentives by themselves or in a vacuum. for comparison's sake, i'd like to inform my colleagues of the

Chuck Grassley

3:21:01 to 3:21:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: cost and duration of a few oil subsidies. the senator from oklahoma has derided the 30-year-old ethanol blenders credit, arguing that the industry is mature. well, what about our century old oil industry? don't forget, oil was discovered in pennsylvania in 1859. now, we haven't had the

Chuck Grassley

3:21:22 to 3:21:42( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: incentives for that long, but according to the government accountability office, the tax breaks allowing for the expensing of intangible drilling costs began in 1916, more than 95 years ago and continues today. the percentage depletion

Chuck Grassley

3:21:43 to 3:22:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: allowance was enacted in 1926, 85 years ago, and it still exists today. after 95 years, is the domestic oil industry not mature? i know my colleagues will be interested in how much these two subsidies have cost the american people. a report issued by the general

Chuck Grassley

3:22:04 to 3:22:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: accounting office in the year 2000 looked at the subsidies for the oil production. they recrude a 32-year period between 1968 and the year 2000. during that time frame, intangible drilling subsidy cost the american people as much as as $52 billion.

Chuck Grassley

3:22:27 to 3:22:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the percentage depletion subsidy cost the american people people $82 billion. so these two provisions enacted nearly a century ago cost the american people as much as as $114 billion from 1968 until the year 2000, and this doesn't even include the subsidies

Chuck Grassley

3:22:48 to 3:23:09( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: during the past 11 years. last month, we had a vote here in the senate to repeal a number of these oil and gas tax provisions. opponents of repealing oil and gas subsidies argued -- argued then and i would presume would

Chuck Grassley

3:23:10 to 3:23:31( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: argue again today that doing so would reduce domestic energy production and drive up our dependence on foreign oil. opponents at that time also argued that it would cost u.s. jobs and increase prices at the pump for consumers. now, i happen to agree with those arguments, but if those arguments are good for oil, they

Chuck Grassley

3:23:32 to 3:23:52( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: are good for not just ethanol but they are good for all sorts of green energy as well. prices at the pump are nearly $4 a gallon. all of our constituents are crying out for action to lower these prices. so it makes sense that congress

Chuck Grassley

3:23:53 to 3:24:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: would consider the steps to address the rising energy costs and work to drive down the costs to consumers at the pump. that's not what the coburn amendment would do. it would not drive down the costs at the pump at all. it would very likely lead to higher prices for consumers. it won't lead to the production

Chuck Grassley

3:24:14 to 3:24:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: of any more energy. it won't create any more jobs. it could very well lead to less domestic energy production and less employment in the u.s. energy sector. in other words, more unemployment and more dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

Chuck Grassley

3:24:38 to 3:24:59( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: at a time of $4 gas and 9.1% unemployment, why would we in this body consider an amendment that will increase the cost of energy production, reduce guess energy supply and lead to job losses? ethanol is reducing prices at the pump.

Chuck Grassley

3:25:00 to 3:25:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a recent study by the center for agriculture and rural development found that ethanol is reducing the price at the pump by an average of 89 cents a gallon. the fact is this amendment is not about reducing prices at the pump. the amendment before us is not about reducing our dependence upon foreign oil.

Chuck Grassley

3:25:23 to 3:25:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that amendment is about raising taxes, and one thing is for certain. if you raise taxes on any activity, you get less of it. that's common economic principle. a taxpayer watchdog group considers a repeal of this tax incentive to be what it is, a tax hike.

Chuck Grassley

3:25:45 to 3:26:05( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: americans for tax reform said -- quote -- "repealing the ethanol credit is a corporate income tax increase." end of quote. i agree. now is not the time to impose a gas tax hike on the american people. now is not the time to send pink

Chuck Grassley

3:26:06 to 3:26:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: slips to ethanol-related jobs. i know we -- i know we all agree that we cannot and should not allow job-killing tax hikes during the time of economic uncertainty. what this congress should be doing is increasing the domestic production of energy as a way to

Chuck Grassley

3:26:28 to 3:26:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: increase jobs, increase domestic investment and lower prices at the pump. this amendment does none of those things and actually, you know what? does exactly the opposite. a repeal of the ethanol tax incentive is a tax increase that will surely be passed on to the american consumers. repealing incentives for ethanol

Chuck Grassley

3:26:52 to 3:27:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: would have the same exact result as the repeal of the oil and gas subsidies. we'll get less domestically produced energy, it will cost u.s. jobs, it will increase our dependence upon foreign oil, it will increase prices at the pump for the american consumer.

Chuck Grassley

3:27:14 to 3:27:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: so why do my colleagues want to increase our foreign energy independence when we can produce it right here at home? so i'd like to ask my colleagues who voted against repealing the oil and gas subsidies but support repealing incentives on renewable fuels why the

Chuck Grassley

3:27:35 to 3:27:55( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: inconsistency. interestingly, the same oil and gas association that is lobbying for repeal of the ethanol incentive led the charge against raising taxes on the oil and gas industry. the president of the national petro camden and refiners association stated -- quote --

Chuck Grassley

3:27:56 to 3:28:16( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: "targeting a specific industry or even a segment of that industry is what we would consider punitive and unfair tax policy, and it is not going to get us increased energy security, increased employment and certainly not going to lower

Chuck Grassley

3:28:17 to 3:28:38( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the price of gasoline." end of quote, from the president of the national petro chemical and refineries association. the fact is it's intellectually inconsistent to say that increasing taxes on ethanol is justified but that it is

Chuck Grassley

3:28:39 to 3:29:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: irresponsible to do so on oil and gas production. if tax incentives lead to more domestic energy production and to good-paying jobs, why are only incentives for oil and gas important? it is even more ridiculous to claim that the 30-year-old

Chuck Grassley

3:29:02 to 3:29:22( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: ethanol industry is mature but the oil and gas industry now over 100 years old is not. regardless, i don't think that we should be raising taxes on any type of energy production or on any individual, particularly when we have a very weak

Chuck Grassley

3:29:23 to 3:29:45( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: economy. and this amendment is a tax increase. the senator from oklahoma also insists that because the renewable fuel is required to be used, it doesn't need an incentive. but but with oil prices at $100 a

Chuck Grassley

3:29:46 to 3:30:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: barrel, oil companies are doing everything they can to extract more oil from the ground. there isn't a mandate to use oil, but oil already has a 100-year-old monopoly on our transportation infrastructure. and that 100-year-old monopoly,

Chuck Grassley

3:30:08 to 3:30:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: they want to maintain as much of it as they can now. right now, because about 10% of the energy used in cars is ethanol, they may only have a 90% of a monopoly, but they sure got a lot to say about what goes into your gas tank without competition.

Chuck Grassley

3:30:29 to 3:30:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: when there is little competition to oil and it's enormously profitable, wouldn't that industry argue that the necessary incentives exist to produce it without additional taxpayer support? oil essentially has a mandate

Chuck Grassley

3:30:51 to 3:31:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: today, and the economics of oil production are clearly in favor of producers. it's still unclear to me why we're having this debate on this bill. this is not an energy bill. it is not a tax bill. its prospects here in the senate are unseine.

Chuck Grassley

3:31:12 to 3:31:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: maybe, most importantly, if this amendment were tached to a bill, the entire bill would be blue-slipped by the house because revenue bills nders under our constitution must originals nate the house of representatives and this is not a house revenue bill. if we send is it to the other body with this amendment, they will send it right back here to us.

Chuck Grassley

3:31:34 to 3:31:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: it will be dead on arrival in the other body. so why are we having this debate on this bill? we should be debating this amendment in the context of a comprehensive energy plan. this debate should be included -- should include a review of the subsidies for all energy

Chuck Grassley

3:31:57 to 3:32:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: production, not just for one of many renewable resources. i could ask, why are we talking about this subsidy on energy -- i mean, on ethanol when we're not talking about the subsidies on oil? why should we be tbawg this subsidy on one -- we be talking

Chuck Grassley

3:32:18 to 3:32:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: about this subsidy on one alternative energy, which is ethanol, but not talking about the subsidies for wind and solar and biomass and geothey are mall and i guess a dozen other alternative energies that we have? it boils down to the fact that we shouldn't be singling out ethanol. nearly every type of energy gets

Chuck Grassley

3:32:41 to 3:33:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: some market distorting subsidy from the federal government. and i've indicated that to you at least for 95 years on one oil subsidy. an honest energy debate should include ethanol, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biomass and probably a

Chuck Grassley

3:33:03 to 3:33:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: lot of others that don't come to my mind at this particular time. in december 2010, congress enacted one-year extension of the volume umetric ethanol excise tax credit that for short

Chuck Grassley

3:33:26 to 3:33:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: goes by the acronym vetc. this has allowed congress and the domestic biofuels industry to determine the best path forward for federal support of biofuels. as a result of discussions, senator conrad and i introduced bipartisan legislation on may 4 that is a serious, responsible first step

Chuck Grassley

3:33:50 to 3:34:11( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to reducing and redirecting federal tax incentives for ethanol. our bill will reduce vetec to a fixed rate 206% in 2012, 15 cents in 2013. it will then convert to a variable tax incentive for the remaining three years based upon the price of crude oil.

Chuck Grassley

3:34:12 to 3:34:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: when crude oil is more than $90 a barrel, there will be no blenders' credit whvment crude oil is $50 a barrel or less, the blenders' credit would be 30 cents. the rate will vary when the price of crudes is between $50 and $90 a barrel. when oil prices are

Chuck Grassley

3:34:33 to 3:34:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: natural incentive shouldies if the market to drive ethanol use. it also would extend through the -- the bill would extend through the year 2016, the alternative fuel refueling property credit, the cellulosic producers' tax credit, and the special

Chuck Grassley

3:34:54 to 3:35:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: depreciation aallowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property. today senator thune and senator klobuchar are introducing another bill to immediately reduce and reform the ethanol tax incentive. it includes many of the same features as the bill i introduced last month but it

Chuck Grassley

3:35:15 to 3:35:35( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: enacts the reform this year. senator thune's approach also leads to significant deficit reduction. the legislation we've introduced is a responsible approach that will reduce the existing blenders' credit and put those vbl resources into investing in alternative fuel infrastructure,

Chuck Grassley

3:35:36 to 3:35:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: including alternative fuel pumps. it would responsibly and predictably reduce the existing tax incentive and help get alternative fuel infrastructure in place so consumers can decide at the pump what fuel they'd prefer. i know that when the american

Chuck Grassley

3:35:57 to 3:36:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: consumers have their choice, they will choose domestic, clean, affordable, renewable fuel. they'll choose fuel from america's farmers and ranchers rather than from oil sheikhs and foreign dictators. both of the ethanol reform bills i mentioned are supported by the

Chuck Grassley

3:36:18 to 3:36:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: ethanol advocacy groups in an almost unprecedented move, the ethanol industry is advocating for a reduction in their federal incentives. no other energy industry, whether it's fossil fuels or renewables, has come to the table to reduce their subsidies.

Chuck Grassley

3:36:40 to 3:37:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: no other energy advocate has come to me with a plan to reduce their federal in conclusion, i'd like to address two points that ethanol opponents continue to make despite facts to the contrary. first, ethanol and ethanol incentives are not a major

Chuck Grassley

3:37:02 to 3:37:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: factor in rising food and corn prices. u.s. secretary of agriculture tom vilsack recently stated -- quote -- "during the great run-up in food and commodity prices in 2007 to 2008, biofuel production played only a minor role, accounting for about 10% of the total increase in global prices.

Chuck Grassley

3:37:24 to 3:37:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: qulings "end of quote. but going back to that time or even more recently, listen to the big food manufacturers that are part of this coalition attacking ethanol. you'd think that the entire blame for the increase in the price of food is because of eth,

Chuck Grassley

3:37:45 to 3:38:05( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: even though ethanol -- is because of ethanol, even though ethanol consumes only 3% of the coors grain produced in the entire world. a recent report by the center for agriculture and rural development skewed concluded that only 8% of the increase in corn prices from 2006 to 2009 was due altogether million to. further, they concluded that

Chuck Grassley

3:38:06 to 3:38:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: because of this small impact, it -- quote -- "necessarily implies that the contribution of ethanol subsidies to food inflation is largely imperceptible in the united states." end of quote. second, ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions significantly compared to gasoline.

Chuck Grassley

3:38:27 to 3:38:47( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the fact is, under the renewable fuel standard created in 2007, corn eth nominee was required -- ethanol was required to real estate duce greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline by at least 20%. now, the fact is corn ethanol exceed that threshold. if you remove e.p.a.'s use of

Chuck Grassley

3:38:48 to 3:39:10( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the murky science surrounding emissionemissions from indirect lane use changes -- land use chairntion ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 48% compared to gasoline. a recent peer review study published in the yale journal of industrial ecology found that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas

Chuck Grassley

3:39:11 to 3:39:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: emissions by up to 59% compared to gasoline. ethanol currently accounts for 10% of our gasoline fuel pool. a study found that the ethanol industry contributed $8.4 billion to the federal treasury in 2009. that happens to be $3.4 billion

Chuck Grassley

3:39:33 to 3:39:54( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: more than the ethanol incentive. today the industry supports 400,000 u.s. jobs. that's why i support homegrown renewable, reliable fuel industries. i'd rather our nation be dependent on renewable fuel producers across this country,

Chuck Grassley

3:39:55 to 3:40:17( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: rather than relying on middle-eastern oil sheikhs or humana low chavez in brazil. and none of those people like us and some of them are traing terroristterrorists with our own money to kills. i'd preaver that we instead -- i'd prefer that we instead support our rue newable fuel producers based right mere in the continental united states.

Chuck Grassley

3:40:18 to 3:40:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i'd prefer that we decrease our dependence on hugo chavez and not increase it. and certainly don't support raising the tax on gasoline during a weak economy. i encourage my colleagues to vote "no" on the motion to invoke cloture on the coburn

Chuck Grassley

3:40:42 to 3:40:45( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: am a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nother.

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid