Statement for the Record: Honoring Mike Riska

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the career of the executive director of the Delaware Nature Society, Michael E. Riska. Mike is retiring this year after serving as executive director for 28 wonderful years spent opening the minds and hearts of Delawareans young and old to the splendor of our natural world.

Mike Riska attended West Chester University and earned a Bachelor of Science with a double major in Biology and Physical Education. He also earned his Master’s in Education in Natural Science from the University of Delaware. He is a certified teacher in biology, general science, health and physical education.

Truly devoted to educating students in the natural sciences, Mike began his career as a teacher at the Tatnall School in Greenville, Delaware. He taught science to students in the first through eighth grades and taught eight five-week upper-school marine ecology courses based on Sanibel Island, Florida.

Mike took his love of science and education to the Delaware Nature Society in 1969, where he started as a part-time instructor and youth programs director. He was part of the initiative to transform the H.B. DuPont Farm into a learning environment for students across Delaware. For my first job, as a seventh grader, I was hired by Mike to assist other Delaware youngsters in building the trails that would soon become Ashland Nature Center. Every year thousands of students, including my own children, attend summer camps and class field trips at the Ashland Nature Center, where they learn about nature, ecology and conservation. 

Mike Riska was appointed to executive director of the Delaware Nature Society in 1984, just the third person to serve in this capacity. With Mike at the helm, the Delaware Nature Society earned record donations for furthering its mission of fostering understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment of the natural world through education. The Society also worked to preserve ecologically significant areas, and advocate stewardship and conservation of natural resources.

Mike has been recognized with several awards, including the Nature Conservancy Lifetime Conservation Achievement Award in 1997, an Exceptional Leadership Award from the Association of Nature Center Administrators’ Board of Directors in 1999, and the 1999 President’s Award of Association of Nature Center Administrators for dedication and service to the nature center profession. The Association of Nature Center Administrators recognized him as the recipient of its 2002 Leadership Award.

Mike has worked closely with several other Delaware nature conservancy organizations and is admired and respected by his peers. Andrew Manus, Director of Conservation Programs of the Delaware Chapter of The Nature Conservancy said, “Let me add my voice of congratulations to others who have benefitted from the years of dedicated service that Mike Riska has brought to conservation in Delaware. The Delaware Nature Society has been well served by his leadership, as has the greater conservation community in Delaware. Mike’s thoughtful advocacy for the natural world in Delaware will be his endearing legacy for us all to enjoy.”

Roger L. Jones, State Director of the Delaware Chapter of The Nature Conservancy stated, “Mike Riska’s legacy is very simple – he instilled a passion for nature and a boundless commitment for protecting our environment within thousands of people in Delaware.” 

Lorraine Fleming, 2005 Delaware Audubon Conservation Award recipient said, “Natural science and environmental education is Mike Riska’s first love. It has been the foundation for his visionary leadership of the Delaware Nature Society over 28 years as executive director and before that as assistant director. Recognition and cultivation of staff and volunteers is Mike’s natural strength. While he is always quick to give credit to his staff members and the society’s large cadre of volunteers, the overall direction and support for DNS’ accomplishments has consistently come from Mike. Mike’s legacy is an enduring preeminent Delaware environmental organization that is nationally renowned among nature centers.”

Mr. President, today I honor Mike Riska’s legacy and accomplishments at the Delaware Nature Society. It is an honor to call him my first boss, a fellow advocate, and my friend.

Opening Statement: Chairing Senate Foreign Relations African Affairs Subcommittee hearing entitled, “China’s Role in Africa: Implications for U.S. Policy”

I am pleased to convene today’s hearing of the African Affairs Subcommittee and am honored to serve with my friend and partner, Senator Isakson. I would like to welcome members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and thank our distinguished witnesses: Ambassador David Shinn, adjunct professor at the George Washington University and former U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia and Burkina Faso; Professor Deborah Brautigam, professor at American University and Senior Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute; and Mr. Stephen Hayes, President and CEO of the Corporate Council on Africa.

Today’s hearing will take a hard look at China’s rapidly expanding role on the African continent and consider how it is affecting American interests. The U.S. isn’t just ceding its economic leadership in Africa to China — it may be ceding its political leadership there as well. We’ll discuss whether China’s expanded reach should serve as a wake-up call for enhanced U.S. trade and investment, and we’ll take a close look at whether China’s growing influence in Africa may counter — or even undermine — U.S. development, diplomacy, and other values-driven goals in the region. Finally, we will consider areas of common interest between the U.S. and China in Africa that could provide the basis for enhanced bilateral and multilateral cooperation.

China’s reach in Africa has grown dramatically in the past decade, and the rate of increased Chinese trade and investment in Africa is truly staggering. Between 2000 and 2010, trade between China and African nations grew by more than a thousand percent. As you can see in the chart here, U.S. trade with Africa grew during this period as well – partly due to the passage of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act — but the average rate of growth in China’s trade with Africa outpaced that of the U.S. by more than 100%.

China clearly sees Africa for what it is – a continent of immense opportunity. Africa is home to six of the world’s ten fastest growing economies. Increased rates of return on foreign investment, vast natural resources, and a burgeoning population have all made Africa an increasingly important player in the global economy.

But as the continent has grown economically, it has continued to have enormous development needs. The United States and China are both investing in that development, but we’re doing so in very different ways. While we share some common interests in Africa that are, at times complementary, we should be clear-eyed about the very different nature of our engagements. 

First, our structures of government spending are different. The United States clearly distinguishes between government assistance and private investment, while the line between the public and private sectors is blurred in China and its many state-owned enterprises. The Chinese government can offer concessionary loans to African governments to build large infrastructure projects – in some cases, with no interest required for up to twenty years – and at the same time, negotiate contracts with those same governments for mineral and oil extraction. 

While the U.S. invests diplomatic capital in the promotion of democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights, our leverage on corrupt African officials and governments is weakened when those regimes can simply turn to China for support with essentially no strings attached.

If there is one message I wish to convey in this hearing, it is that the long-term American objective of promoting open societies in Africa – countries that embrace transparency and democracy, respect the environment, and protect human rights – is being challenged by China’s approach to Africa. By offering an alternative “non-intrusive” source of investment and development, China offers African regimes economic opportunity at the expense of government reform and in a manner that often does not directly benefit the average African citizen.

This highlights a second key distinction – the U.S. government invests in the people of Africa, while the Chinese government invests in the infrastructure of Africa. It’s tough to say precisely, given China’s obvious lack of transparency, but experts estimate that 70 percent of Chinese assistance to Africa comes in the form of roads, stadiums, and government buildings, often built with Chinese materials and built by Chinese laborers. China is not transferring technology to Africa, nor is it employing many Africans. In contrast, 70 percent of U.S. government spending is directed toward investments in the African people, primarily through health programs to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases. These programs build upon the strong legacy of U.S. investment in global health established by Presidents Clinton and Bush.

America’s extensive public-sector investments in Africa are not as visible as those of China.  Many Africans point proudly to the Chinese-built road, building, or hospital in their capital without realizing that the doctors and nurses have been trained by Americans, and the medical supplies are provided by the U.S. government. Moreover, many rural health clinics that are lowering maternal mortality rates, vaccinating children, and donating mosquito nets across Africa are U.S.-funded. We may be winning the war on disease, while losing the battle for hearts and minds in Africa. 

As we think about next steps for the U.S. public and private sectors, we must gain a better understanding of China’s role and motives, and take steps to ensure the United States is not missing-out on valuable opportunities in Africa.

Senator Durbin is proposing legislation that does just that. It aims to create jobs in America by increasing U.S. exports to Africa by at least 200 percent in the next ten years. This is absolutely critical, because China has outpaced the U.S. in growth of exports to Africa over the past ten years by nearly three to one.

I want to thank Senator Durbin for initiating this legislation. We need a comprehensive U.S. trade strategy for Africa, and we must work with the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to increase lending for projects in Africa. USTR must find ways to expand bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade, and the Department of Commerce must continue to invest in U.S. Commercial Service officers in Africa to help make U.S. businesses more competitive.  More U.S. companies selling their goods in Africa translates into more American jobs.

These are the tools by which we can take a more aggressive approach to expanding the scope of U.S. investment in Africa to the benefit of small and medium-sized American companies like Wise Power in my home state of Delaware, which sells solar-energy technology and is expanding its footprint in Africa to provide electricity, protect the environment, and create green-jobs for Americans and Africans.

The U.S. government must pursue an aggressive strategy that aims to capitalize on the vast array of opportunities in Africa. We simply cannot afford to lose out to China in the private sector, and – in the public sector – we must ensure that our values are not undermined by China’s expansive political and economic agenda. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses how the United States can achieve these objectives, but first, I turn to Senator Isakson for his opening statement.

###

Statement for the Record: Advancing Biofuels

Mr. President, I rise to reiterate my support for the amendment submitted by my colleagues from California and Oklahoma, which just passed the Senate.  I was glad we had an opportunity to debate whether to repeal corn ethanol subsidies, and I was even happier for the chance to vote successfully for it.  This issue is important not only for the future of meeting our energy challenges but also for helping to alleviate the burden of rising costs on America’s farmers and on consumers. 

As my colleague from California has noted, corn-based ethanol has historically been supported by three policies:  the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, known as VEETC, which provides a 45 cent per gallon tax credit to gasoline suppliers who blend ethanol with gasoline; a tariff of 54 cents per gallon on imported ethanol, which is largely targeted at sugarcane ethanol from Brazil; and a requirement that mandates the use of ethanol in gasoline by set amounts every year, increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

VEETC and the import tariff may have been needed in the past to stand up the nascent corn-based ethanol industry, but experts agree that the industry has matured, and these two supports are no longer needed.

At a time when our federal government facing a massive deficit and spiraling debt, we need to take a hard look at how we spend our taxpayer dollars. These subsidies are expensive, and studies have shown them to have dramatic impacts on our federal budget as well as on the cost of corn feed used by chicken farmers, including those in Delaware.  This year alone VEETC will cost taxpayers $6 billion. We just can’t afford to maintain this duplicative and wasteful subsidy. 

Delaware’s chicken farmers can’t afford it either.  Most economists and market analysts agree that the steady growth in ethanol demand has had a dramatic effect on the price of corn.  This cost has trickled down to related agricultural markets, including food, feed, fuel, and land.  The average annual price of corn has jumped 225% just in the past five years.  Last week, corn futures reached nearly eight dollars a bushel, which is 140% over last year. 

The number one cost for chicken farmers is feed, and farmers in Delaware are feeling the pinch.  One major poultry company declared bankruptcy last week, and it cited the high cost of corn feed as a major factor.  Couple this with rising energy costs, trade barriers, and low chicken prices, and you can see why many poultry companies are nearing a breaking point. 

Something must be done.  The VEETC credit and the tariff are no longer worth the investment.  It is past time that we repeal these subsidies, and I was proud to vote for the Feinstein-Coburn amendment to do so. 

At the same time, let me be clear:  the Feinstein-Coburn approach is only part of a larger effort.  In addition to ending VEETC and the tariff, we must also do much more to promote investment in the research, development, and deployment of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic and drop-in biofuels.  These will help us reduce our dependence on petroleum and encourage further innovation.  We need to provide greater certainty to help launch a next-generation biofuels industry through the extension of tax credits and other federal programs for certain targeted advanced biofuels.

Many concerns are raised because corn ethanol dominates the U.S. biofuels market.  But what is our ultimate goal?  Shouldn’t it be about greater fuel efficiency and product diversity in our domestic transportation sector?  First, that can be achieved through increased fuel economy standards.  Second, it can also come from technological alternatives like electrification, natural gas and hydrogen fueled vehicles.  Third – and most important for what we are debating here today – it will come from developing commercially viable, advanced biofuels. 

There are legitimate concerns about corn ethanol’s economic and environmental impacts, but we should also not be cutting off our nose to spite our face.  For this reason, I have filed an amendment that makes it clear that we should be redirecting the repeal of the VEETC to deficit reduction and the extension of advanced biofuels for five-years to provide a long-term signal to this small but emerging industry.

I want to be part of a solution that provides a strong, long-term future for our nation’s alternative fuels industry.  I want to see domestically produced, next-generation feedstocks grow.  This would be from cellulosic, biodiesel, and drop-in fuels like methanol and butanol.  They could come from different feedstocks like recycled grease, wood, corn stover, switch grass, municipal waste, algae, and livestock manure.  Right now there is little to no commercial production, but we need to support those efforts with new incentives for these fuels and bio-refineries.  Most importantly, we need to work on bringing down the costs and expanding their markets.     

In Delaware, inventive companies are already hard at work researching cutting-edge biofuel systems, including ones that produce energy from soybeans and algae.  One such company is Elcriton in Newark, which is producing drop-in fuels from duckweed, an aquatic plant that can be used to produce fuel.  Another company headquartered in Delaware, DuPont, is working with partners around the country on both cellulosic and biobutanol technologies.  None of these fuels compete with the price of livestock feed.  I am proud of the biofuel innovation taking place in my state, and I want to replicate this model across the country.

In addition, this growth of advanced biofuel innovation has the potential to lead to new economic opportunities not only for energy companies and consumers but also for Delaware chicken farmers.  Today, of great concern to them is the price of corn on the input end of farm operations, but – hopefully not too far down the road – a significant factor on their balance-books may soon be earnings from waste that can be sold for biofuels.

Ultimately, the policies we pursue should lead to American consumers, producers, and farmers using less petroleum.  If we are going to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly those imported from overseas, we’re going to need to pursue a range of cleaner and more secure sources of energy.  Advanced biofuels are central to this effort, and, now that we have taken the first step by adopting the Feinstein-Coburn Amendment, I hope the Senate will take the next step as well.

###