Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I know a great many sugar producers who have had to buy the sugar beet factory in order to have a viable business. In doing so, they have taken out extensive loans and the whole financial structure is based on the current sugar program. And so to change the program in the middle of the stream when these people are oftentimes selling at marginal rates, sometimes below the forfeiture level, and then to say, well, we are just going to change it 5 or 6 percent, the margin of profit sometimes is no more than 2 or 3 percent.

So to say to these people, it makes no difference and we are going to just willy-nilly change the farm bill makes absolutely no sense. You can do it for wheat, you can do it for corn, you can do it for any crop; and that is why we have a farm bill, to make sure that people have some continuity, have something to hang their hat on.

I certainly rise in opposition and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this evening to be joined by some of my colleagues. We went to Iraq a few weeks ago. We find a lot of conversation on the House floor about what should and should not be done, and so we would like to take this opportunity to discuss what we saw.

I guess one of the main objectives tonight is to inform the public that this is not always a highly partisan issue. The Members that went to Iraq were both Republicans and Democrats. We got along very well. We continue to get along very well. Sometimes the general impression that is conveyed by conversation on the House floor is that we are always at each other's throats and that this is what politics is all about. I think this is very misleading in many cases; and as a result, we hope to have a bipartisan discussion tonight of those events that we encountered as we traveled overseas.

Those who went with us were the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who is here now, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

As we talked to the soldiers over there, we often heard this comment: there seem to be really two wars. There is the war that ofttimes is seen on television; and certainly the bombings, the beheadings and all the really violent things we see are very true, they are part of this conflict; but also the soldiers would continually mention the fact that there is another war that they are seeing, another war they are fighting that ofttimes is not conveyed over the airwaves. So we would like to really discuss these issues.

I have made three trips to Iraq. I have been to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Jordan twice, Landstuhl Air Base in Germany a couple of times, and Walter Reed many times. So I have had many chances to talk to the soldiers. And I guess the thing that continues to impress me and the overwhelming impression that I get is the efficiency of our Army, the sense of mission, the sense of accomplishment, and a generally upbeat attitude.

Now, certainly being in Iraq or Kuwait or Afghanistan, or in a hospital, cannot be an entirely uplifting experience; and there is some hardship and there is some difficulty. But, still, it seems the soldiers are amazingly intact and amazingly upbeat when you consider their circumstances.

I will just mention two things on this trip and then turn it over to some of my other colleagues here for discussion. The first stop that we had in Iraq was at al Asad. Al Asad is a base out in the desert. It is in al Anbar Province, which is the largest province in Iraq. It is a desert area. It is becoming a fairly dangerous area because many of the insurgents have been driven out of the cities and are now in the desert. So it is a fairly wild situation.

In my previous trips, again I had always had a fairly positive reception from the troops. But as we landed in al Anbar, I thought, well, this is the place where I am going to start hearing the complaints. Because there was not a blade of grass, there was not a tree, obviously very little to do socially, and quite a large number of troops out there. There are two groups from Nebraska, one was a medical troop and one was a transportation group. So I spent quite a bit of time talking to those soldiers, probably met about 100 of them personally, and there were about another 80 who were out on patrol. Again, the same attitude that we had encountered other places was very prevalent. They were proud of what they were doing, they had a sense of mission, and generally were very positive about what was going on.

So that trip, the first part, was, again, somewhat of a surprise in view of the surroundings. The second area that I want to mention was towards the end of our trip. We went to an Iraqi women's caucus, and this caucus was held in Jordan on the banks of the Dead Sea. And the reason we went over there was that we had formed an Iraqi Women's Caucus for Women's Issues here in Washington.

The genesis of that caucus was simply a conversation between Paul Wolfowitz, Jennifer Dunn, and myself, where we began to speculate on the role of women in the new Iraqi government as the war progressed. And we began to talk about the fact that women would certainly play an important role; that women ofttimes are the peacemakers; and possibly to have a positive resolution to this whole conflict would have to involve the women of Iraq.

So we began to move forward on this. Iraqi women were brought to the United States. And part of this movement was to bring Iraqi women over to the Dead Sea, out of Iraq, where they could learn a little more about democracy and strategies in terms of running for office and so on.

So there were 1,000 women who applied for 250 spots at this seminar. And so we met with those 250 women. They came by auto, and they came from all

points in Iraq. And they were stopped for about 12 hours, most of them, at the Jordan border. They could not get in the country. So that was difficult. Three carloads of them were fired upon as they went across al Anbar Province. And of course there was a great deal of danger and a great deal of risk. Two of the women we had had over here in the United States as part of the caucus had been killed during the elections, when they ran for office. So it was a very dangerous business.

As we interacted with those women, we had some interesting conversation and we picked up some general themes, and those themes were reinforced by three women who were from Iraq who were in my office yesterday. Essentially, what these women were saying yesterday and also several weeks ago was very similar. They said, first of all, we now have a sense of hope. We have a sense that the future is going to be reasonably bright. We appreciate freedom.

They pointed out that there is now a great deal of marriage going on in Iraq, where under Saddam, for many years, very few people got married because of the situation. They have noticed a resurgence of entrepreneurial activity. They are pleased with the number of women in government. There were roughly 80 out of 275 spots in the constitutional convention that belonged to women. Schools have been renovated. Attendance, particularly by women, has gone up in the schools. And, of course, a great many of the children, about 97 percent of the children, have been vaccinated.

Now, we do not mean to paint an entirely rosy picture. The women I saw yesterday, the women we saw in Iraq said that security is a major problem. They live with some sense of fear almost all the time. They mentioned problems with the infrastructure. Electricity still is a problem. In many cases, it is on only about half the time. The thing about it now, though, is different than under Saddam. Under Saddam, there were certain areas, where his people were, that had very good electrical service and the rest of the country had no service at all. Now there is service all over the country, but many times people have only intermittent service.

Sewage disposal is still a problem, water problems still persist; and the job market is not what we would like to see it, but it is better than it was before. And of course the other issue is there has been a resurgence, particularly as it relates to women to fundamentalism. Sharia, the rather fundamental interpretation of Islamic law, sometimes is regaining a hold in terms of how women are perceived and how they feel they should be treated or are treated.

So it is a mixed picture. But still, overall, they say they would not trade their present situation with the insecurity that they are now experiencing for what they had under Saddam and feel they are generally much better off.

So with those prefatory comments, I would like to yield to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who we really enjoyed being with and spending time with. And so I will let each Member have a shot at it, say a few words, and then we will all have a dialogue as time goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) for those observations. Many people do not realize that life does go on in Baghdad. There is a degree of normalcy. It has been almost universal, my experience with the troops, who have indicated that their number one desire is to get back to their units, some who have even lost limbs.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to a very unusual Member. He spends a lot of his time in the House gym. He has been up on Everest several times. I do not know if he has ever made it to the top. He has climbed a lot of the highest mountains in the world, and has become a great friend.

We have actually been to Iraq twice, and he even wore a Nebraska football hat as we flew over Baghdad, so Members can tell he is an unusual person. I am referring to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and I would appreciate any recollections the gentleman has of the trip.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his

insights. He has been a great guy to travel with, a great person to get to know, and certainly someone whom I admire a great deal. You mentioned being at Landstuhl. All of you remember the young guy whose name was Chris Ruehl. He had been shot and been in an ambush. This guy was interesting because I thought, if I was coaching a football team, I would like to have a whole bunch of Chris Ruehls, because he had this hole in his shoulder, but he got up and he was explaining what happened. Then he gets out his camera, and he is showing us pictures that he took while he was getting shot at. I thought, you know, this is one brave guy. I tracked him down, I got his cell phone, after he got back to the United States. He was all geared up, ready to go back. He wanted to get back in the fight.

An interesting guy, an interesting time. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) is next. He and I made a couple of trips. We were in Afghanistan and Iraq together and Kuwait, and then this last trip. I am interested in hearing his insights into what he saw and what he remembers. Even though it has been 6 weeks ago, I am sure he remembers a lot.

The gentleman from Texas has been a great guy to travel with. I have had some good experiences.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call on the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley). He and I had not traveled before, so I got to know him a lot better. He is really a very astute individual, a lot of insightful questions.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his insights. We were at Abu Ghraib also last September, and at one time Saddam Hussein had been told he had too many people in the prison and to get rid of 2,000. The ones that he did not like a whole lot, but did not hate, he hung. And the rest of them, he put

in the wood shredder. It is unbelievable that one human being could do that to another, but in one day he got rid of 2,000 to get the numbers down to where he felt it was more comfortable.

The last person I would like to yield to is a great friend of mine, and we cochair the Congressional Prayer Breakfast on Thursday morning. So tomorrow morning we will be together. And that is the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis). We sat across from each other for about 14 hours going over, and I learned how to speak Tennessee during that period of time. The first 3 hours I did not understand him, but as time went on, I got to understand him really well.

We really had a great time with the gentleman. We put him in the Dead Sea, and we could not even sink him in the Dead Sea.

So, Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. And we will not even get into that elephant that was hung in his district. That is for another special order.

I just want to mention the bravery of Iraqi officials. We kind of stick our necks out here a little bit, but over there when they run for office, they are literally putting their life on the line and their families. And that jumped out at us.

The other thing I might mention is that General Casey mentioned to us that he thought things were going better since the elections, but he said the wild card here is the issue of the Sunnis, are the Sunnis going to be incorporated?

That is still up for grabs. So we do not want to leave the American people with an impression that everything is perfect. There are still problems. But I think anyone who goes there and spends time there, spends time with the soldiers, from either party, we may disagree on how we got there, whether we should have gone there, but you have to be impressed with the soldiers in this situation.

If anyone has a closing comment for the good of the order, we would be glad to hear it from any of you.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it makes it all work.

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed this. We enjoyed the trip and thank all of you for participating tonight. Again, we tried to show that a lot of us do get along pretty well. Some of the best hours here are in the gym and places like that, where we do not really have an identity as Republicans or Democrats, and we simply come together and try to solve problems in the country.

I was honored to have time with these gentleman. I thought I learned a lot. I learned a lot from the Iraqis, but I learned a lot from you, and thank I you for participating tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much and applaud him for his effort. I have been able to listen to most of what was said tonight. Obviously, the gentleman has a tremendous depth of scientific understanding. I do not have that depth, but I would just like to reflect on the dilemma that many Members will be placed in tomorrow as we decide on this particular vote.

As the gentleman has mentioned, those who are in favor of embryonic stem cell research, many of them are people who have children who have juvenile diabetes. There are many who have parents or others with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease and so on. We have heard from these people personally, and our hearts go out to them. We have heard that 400,000 embryos are going to be discarded anyway, and on and on and on.

Yet, on the other side of the argument, as the gentleman has amplified so well, there are some other dilemmas. One thing that is of concern to me is when is a life a life? Obviously, we would not take a 2-year-old and do any harm to that child; we would not experiment on that child. We would not do it to a 1-year-old. Probably, in many cases, most of us would say an 8-month-old fetus would not be appropriate to do some harm to. But where is it that you draw the line? Is it at 6 months? Is it at 4 months? Is it at 1 month? Is it at 1 week?

So therein lies the horns of the dilemma. So many of us are of the persuasion that you really cannot draw that line. When a life is a life is at conception, and therefore you have to respect life. There is a certain sanctity of life.

So, again, the arguments will range wide and far tomorrow. Some will say that embryos can be adopted, and they can. So whether we have 400,000 or 20,000, maybe 1,000, maybe 10,000, maybe 15,000, maybe more than that will be adopted out.

Many will argue that adult stem cells are more productive in research. As the gentleman has pointed out so effectively here, some of that has to do with the length of time of research. There is no question. But there is no question that adequate resources and adult stem cell research will produce results.

There is also the question about private funding. There is no restriction on private funding on embryonic stem cell research. If it is so promising, then why has the private sector not stepped up, because obviously there are huge profits to be made if you have some type of a cure for juvenile diabetes or Alzheimer's or whatever; and yet we do not seem to see that afoot.

Then I guess the last thing that I would mention is that there is the ethical question, should we use public funds in doing research that is so divisive, that has so many people on both sides of the fence? It seems we should have more unanimity in using public funds to do this type of research.

So I applaud the gentleman for the proposed legislation that he has before us, because in this legislation is the prospect of using embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Of course, that removes the dilemma on both sides. So we think that the legislation, even though it is in its early stages, certainly has great promise and is one that we ought to pay very close heed to and one that would certainly be much more appealing to me than the other alternatives at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to come down briefly and let the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) know I appreciate his efforts. I have read the White House white paper. I understand most of what is in there.

One other thing that is also mentioned is the fact that when these frozen embryos are thawed out, many of them die, as the gentleman mentioned; and some of those apparently will yield stem cells in the early stages.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for this legislation.

I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding. Obviously, I have the worst affliction that a politician can have. I have laryngitis. I am playing hurt tonight. This is an all-Nebraska deal, it looks like. I really appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) organizing this. This is a very important issue. Probably half the States at the present time have a serious meth problem, but the ones that do not have it are going to have it. We think the whole country needs to be aware.

I would just like to provide a little background here. Methamphetamines first came into prominence during World War II. Quite often the Japanese kamikaze pilots were given meth. It gets you in such a euphoric state that you will take off in an airplane with not enough gas to return and think you are still going to make it somehow.

It obviously has a powerful pull. It is the most highly addictive drug that is known to man. In many cases, one exposure to methamphetamine renders the victim permanently addicted. Sometimes people take methamphetamine without even knowing what it is they are getting into. It provides a high that will last from 6 to 8 hours. It dumps a huge amount of dopamine which makes you feel good and, of course, eventually the next time it takes a little bit more and a little bit more and so on. It provides increased energy. Many working mothers, people working two jobs, will eventually get drawn into meth, truck drivers that want to stay out on the road for 48 to 72 hours. Some people on meth will stay awake for a week, sometimes even 2 weeks.

It does provide some energy. It also will provide the ability to lose weight, which is very attractive. On top of that, it is relatively cheap. In any place where you have a problem with cocaine or with heroin, meth will fix the problem, because it is cheaper, it is more powerful and almost without exception when meth comes in, the other things begin to decrease but the meth problem is so much worse that obviously the community is much worse off.

Whatever goes up must come down. I guess that is a law of physics, and so the accompanying emotions to meth abuse are anxiety, depression, hallucinations. Sometimes it is psychotic behavior. Violent behavior is often a side effect. Most meth addicts have what is known as crank bugs. They have the feeling that there is something crawling under their skin, and so they try to pick them out. We could have shown you some very graphic pictures tonight of people who have tremendous lesions on their skin. Maybe the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has some of those.

Methamphetamine abuse always causes brain damage. Every time it destroys brain cells. A young person, maybe 18, 19 years old, who has been on meth for a year, will have a brain scan that will look almost identical to an 80-year-old Alzheimer's patient. You cannot distinguish the two. There are so many brain lesions, so much damage to the brain. It is very common, obviously, in rural areas because if you are going to manufacture methamphetamine, the odor is very distinct and so people seek out abandoned farmsteads. Sometimes they have mobile labs where they make it in the back of a van or something like that, but they usually like to stay out away from people.

The ingredients in methamphetamine are somewhat startling and a little bit bizarre. Pseudophedrine is, of course, the one ingredient that they have to have. In addition, oftentimes they use lithium batteries, drain cleaner, starter fluid, anhydrous ammonia, and iodine. So it is a tremendously toxic brew that is developed; and as a result, it costs about $5,000 or $6,000 to clean up a meth lab. It is very expensive. In some parts of the central United States, I believe Iowa had about 1,500 meth labs year; Missouri, around 2,000. So that is about $10 million just to clean up the meth labs alone. And, of course, most of those funds come from the Byrne grants and the HIDTA grants that we were talking about.

If we think about the cost of methamphetamine abuse, in our area most of the child abuse, most of the child neglect, most of the infant death, young people death, foster care are caused by methamphetamine today. So it is a very difficult situation and very costly.

The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has already mentioned the Federal prison cells and the jail cells. So the last comment I will have today is simply this, that we are not saving money by cutting the Byrne grants. We are not saving money by cutting HIDTA because the average meth addict in Nebraska commits 60 crimes a year. So if we have 10 meth addicts in a community, that is 600 crimes.

The line of first defense is those law enforcement officers that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry)

showed. And these are the people who rely almost exclusively on the Byrne grants and on the HIDTA grants, the HIDTA grants are high- intensity drug traffic grants, and we have a huge amount of methamphetamine coming up from the southwest part of the United States and Mexico, going across Nebraska on Interstate 80. And the only way to intercept that and the only way to handle those drugs is with HIDTA. So we would urge Congress, other Members in this body, to support our efforts to restore those funds.

And I would again like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), who will speak shortly, for their efforts in this regard. We have approached the Speaker. We have talked to the appropriators, and we are making every effort that we can.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.

It seems like there is quite a bit of discrepancy here in our information. Many of us believe that natural gas can be extracted without endangering the environment. I happen to be on that side of the issue.

We have continually increased our emphasis and our dependence on natural gas, and yet our supply has remained stagnant. We have tried to put in the pipeline from Alaska. That has been stalled.

Currently, we are paying 600 percent more for natural gas than many other nations in the world. Those living on fixed incomes are being eaten up by these costs.

In the area of agriculture, we find that pumping fuel is 20 percent higher this year. We are going to need 10 to 12 cents more per bushel of grain in order to offset the increasing cost of gas and fertilizer. This is the margin that most farmers rely on. That puts them into an unprofitable situation.

So I rise in support of this amendment. I believe it can be done in an environmentally safe and sensitive way, and it does make sense.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to discuss a major problem that is moving rapidly across the country. That is the problem of methamphetamine.

Methamphetamines first came into prominence during World War II. Many Japanese kamikaze pilots were given methamphetamine to allow them to finish their mission.

From that point on it spread to Hells Angel and other biker groups on the West Coast and has been slowly spreading its way from west to east across the country. It is the most highly addictive drug that is known at the present time, often causes complete addiction after only one usage.

It creates a euphoria that lasts between 6 and 8 hours. There is a huge dopamine release in the brain, and it is cheap. It costs much less than heroin and cocaine, provides increased energy. Many young mothers who have two or three kids and have a tremendous energy drain become drawn to this particular drug.

People who are working two jobs, sometimes truck drivers who want to stay awake for 2 or 3 days on end find that methamphetamine serves their ends. Often it always results in fairly rapid weight loss.

However, whatever goes up must come down, and we find that those who are using methamphetamine usually will experience, at times, extreme anxiety, depression, hallucinations, many times will actually sink into a psychosis.

Violent behavior is often a side effect. Many methamphetamine addicts experience crank bugs. These are the hallucination that there is a bug underneath the skin. As a result, in order to get those bugs out, they will pick at their skin. That will cause rather extreme skin lesions to result.

Also, when they use it orally, their teeth disintegrate very rapidly, extremely quick aging, and usually death ensues within a few years of methamphetamine use.

It always causes brain damage. And much of this brain damage is irreversible. An 18-year old who has been on meth for a year will have a brain scan that will look very like an 80-year old Alzheimer's patient. There is so much brain tissue that has been destroyed, that the two brain scans are somewhat indistinguishable.

It is very common to see a great deal of meth abuse in rural areas. And this is due to the fact that when you manufacture meth, there is a very strong odor of ether. And as a result, if you manufacture in the city, sometimes that odor is easily detectable.

The chief ingredient of methamphetamine is pseudophedrine, a common cold medicine. Oklahoma has done a fairly effective job of eliminating the meth labs by making pseudophedrine a class V substance. And that puts it behind the pharmacy counter.

But many other States have failed to follow suit. Other ingredients of methamphetamine are lithium batteries, drain cleaner, starter fluid, anhydrous ammonia, and iodine.

It is a tremendously toxic mix, and of course it lease a lot of toxic waste. In order to clean up a methamphetamine lab, it will cost anywhere from $5 to $6,000. Many of the suits that are worn by those cleaning un those meth labs cost about $500, and they can only be used one time because of the toxicity.

Some areas of middle America have had as many as 1,500 to 2,000 meth labs per year in these States, so it a huge expense to clean up, and a huge problem in terms of addiction.

The average meth addict, in my State, Nebraska, will commit roughly 60 crimes a year to feed that habit. So if you have ten meth addicts in a community that is 600 crimes a year. If that a small town that is a huge impact.

Much of the child abuse, child neglect, homicides, suicides that we see in these areas are due directly to methamphetamine abuse. Many counties in these areas spend 70 to 80 percent of their law enforcement dollars and their manpower on meth issues.

Our jail cells and our prisons are filled. We simply cannot keep up and take care of the methamphetamine problem. So the question is, what can Congress do with this huge problem? Currently our Byrne and our HIDTA funds, which are high intensity drug trafficking funds have been drastically reduced. We need to restore these funds. This is a huge problem in terms of funding.

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and also the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) have introduced legislation that regulates the sale of pseudophedrine that is necessary in the manufacture of methamphetamine. And also they would provide extra funds for meth lab clean-ups.

The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder's) bill tracks manufacturers of pseudophedrine worldwide. And of course the pseudophedrine goes to many of the super labs, they are only seven or eight factories for pseudophedrine worldwide. And so if we know where those drugs are going, where the pseudophedrine is going, we have a pretty good idea where the super labs are.

So these bills would be tremendously helpful. So I call attention to the meth problem, call attention to the reduction in funding, and we really need to do everything we can to stamp this problem out.

Mr. Speaker, I did not come here to speak about Iraq. I have been there three times and the last time was 3 weeks ago. And each time I have been very impressed by the morale and the attitude of our soldiers, and they consistently have asked me to do this. They said, you know, we see two wars. We see the one that is being fought on CNN, and that is true. That is a reality, the bombings. But we also see the war that we are fighting. Would you please occasionally go home and tell people about the good things that are happening in education and health care, economy and so on. And so it is a tough deal. It is tough. And yet there are some good things that are happening.

The reason I came over here tonight to speak was about the Fuels Security Act, which has been introduced by the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

As almost everyone in our country is aware, we have really suffered from high fuel prices over the last several months. And this has probably been the greatest drag we could possibly have on our economy at the present time. We are now nearly 60 percent dependent on foreign oil. And OPEC can influence the price of fuel here dramatically by either loosening or tightening their fuel supply. We recently saw that with our negotiations with Saudi Arabia. And so this is a very uncomfortable position for this country to be in.

An alternative to foreign oil is ethanol and biodiesel. Currently, 10 percent ethanol blends are roughly 10 to 15 cents a gallon cheaper at the pump than regular gasoline. We find that E 85, which is 85 percent ethanol, is 60 to 70 cents a gallon cheaper. So in my State, Nebraska, E 85 has been selling for about $1.60 a gallon, where other fuels have been $2.20 and $2.30.

Currently, 20 States produce ethanol, and that would include California and Kentucky, States that at one time we assumed would never be in the ethanol business. And as many people know, ethanol can be produced from biomass, even certain types of garbage. And I think eventually all 50 States probably will have some type of ethanol production of one kind or another.

In 2004 we produced 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol. This year, 2005, we will hit roughly 4.5 billion gallons. And the reason I am here tonight is that I want to make clear that people understand that the renewable fuel standard in the energy bill passed by the House and now sent over to the other body mandates that we go to 5 billion gallons of ethanol production by the year 2012. Well, we are going to be over 5 billion gallons next year, in 2006. And that is why we have introduced the Fuels Security Act. The Fuels Security Act proposes that we raise the ethanol allotment from 5 billion gallons to 8 billion gallons by 2012.

Increasing ethanol production will have several positive consequences and effects on the economy. Number one, it will lower the price of gasoline. Currently, the ethanol industry that we have in place today lowers the average price of a gallon of gasoline by 29 cents. So if somebody has been paying $2.20 at the pump, they would be paying about $2.50 if we took ethanol out of the picture.

Ethanol production raises the price of a bushel of corn by about 30 to 40 cents a bushel. As corn prices increase, farm payments decline. It is a countercylical effect. And so ethanol reduces the cost of the farm bill by an estimated $5.9 billion over 10 years, which will certainly be a benefit to the taxpayer. It will add $51 billion to farm income over 10 years. It will reduce the trade deficit by $64 billion between 2005 and 2012. And everyone knows that we are suffering from a very disadvantageous trade deficit at the present time.

We will add 243,000 jobs to our economy and reduce greenhouse gases by 7 million tons a year. So we think that biodiesel and ethanol is a very viable alternative. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil. And we would hope that the other body would consider including the Fuels Security Act in conference when and if they get the energy bill passed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I rise to support the reauthorization of the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act and the underlying rule.

One of our Nation's greatest needs at the present time is a well- trained, competent workforce with specific skills. As most people in our country realize, at the present time, our educational system is not producing enough of these people to meet our needs, and therefore, we are bringing in people from overseas to fill highly skilled jobs, and Perkins is one solution to this dilemma.

Currently, the Perkins program trains 10 million Americans for specialized jobs requiring specific skills.

As has been stated previously, this reauthorization provides greater flexibility and more control at the local level. So each local entity that controls the educational endeavor at that point can decide how to best structure the Perkins program. It increases academic rigor, improves accountability and provides for a better transition from high school to post-secondary schools.

One thing that I would like to point out at this time is that in rural areas our greatest challenge is the loss of young people. We are depopulating our rural areas, and one reason for this is that farms are getting bigger and it is crowding people off the land. So one allowable use of the Perkins grant is to provide entrepreneurial training, and we find that in rural areas that the young person can be taught how to write a business plan, how to access capital, how to write a grant, how to market, how to create a Web site. This is the best alternative we have, the best way we have to keep young people employed in rural areas.

In some areas, we are losing 75 percent, 80 percent of our graduates. It costs $85,000 to educate them K through 12, and they are taking off. So we think that these Perkins grants can be used in this way and in a very effective way.

So I think vocational and technical education may be the most important, yet least appreciated, segments of our educational system. I certainly support the bill and the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend some time this evening talking about something that I think should concern all of us on both sides of the aisle here, something that sometimes flies under the radar screen in our country, and that is the epidemic of methamphetamine abuse.

Methamphetamines first came into prominence during World War II. It was often given to kamikaze pilots, Japanese military, before they took off, never to return. Some of the German military units going on almost certain deaths missions also used it.

It is the most highly addictive drug that has been discovered. It often causes addiction after one usage; and hardly any other drug that is known to man will do that to you. It releases huge amounts of dopamine, thousands of times the amount of dopamine that a normal pleasurable experience that is not drug-induced might cause a person to experience. It creates euphoria that last between 6 and 8 hours, and an increased sense of well-being and confidence.

Increased energy, many times soccer moms, people who are working two jobs will fall prey to methamphetamine abuse. And of course, it also provides the ability to remain awake for long periods of time, sometimes as much as 6 or 7 days so truck drivers, people in those types of professions, oftentimes begin to use it.

It often results in weight loss and it is relatively inexpensive. So there are many attractive elements to it. But the long term effects are disastrous. Whatever comes up must come down, and you come down really hard off of methamphetamine. It produces anxiety, depression, hallucinations, many times psychoses. Violent behavior is often a side effect.

It usually rots teeth very rapidly. Crank bugs, the feeling that bugs are crawling on your skin and, therefore, people try to pick them out so there are usually huge skin lesions on the arms and legs of those addicted to methamphetamines. Early death and stroke.

It always causes brain damage. Every time you use methamphetamines it destroys brain tissue. It is not long before a person who maybe is a young person who has been on meth for 6 months or a year will have a brain scan almost identical to a 70- or 80-year old Alzheimer's patient because of the brain lesions in the brain.

It is very common in rural areas. It is often manufactured in the country side because of the odor and toxic chemicals that are used. It is made from pseudophedrine, a common cold medicine which all of us have had some experience with. But there are some other additives that are a little less innocuous, lithium batteries, drain cleaner, starter fluid, anhydrous ammonia, and iodine so it is a tremendously toxic mix.

It costs roughly 5 to $6,000 to clean up a meth lab. Some areas in middle America have had as many as 1,500 to 2,000 meth labs a year being cleaned up, so it is a huge expense and it is a real blight on the countryside.

The average meth addiction and addict in my State, Nebraska, will commit roughly 60 crimes a year to support their habit. So if you have a small community with 10 meth addicts, you have got 600 crimes being committed. It has changed the whole tenor of small towns in many areas because of this increased crime.

Many counties in these areas spend 70 to 80 percent of their law enforcement dollars and their manpower on meth prevention and meth treatment. The majority of jail and prison cells are occupied by those who are addicted by meth. And most of the child abuse in these areas, most of the child neglect and most of the deaths that children experience are as a result of parents and others who are addicted to methamphetamine.

So the question is what can Congress do?

First of all, the Byrne grants that we are somewhat familiar with are what fund the meth lab clean-ups. And the Byrne grants absolutely have to be funded so this is critical. Also the COPS program is critical to the interdiction and the disruption of meth traffic.

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and also the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), have introduced legislation that regulates the sale of pseudophedrine that is necessary to manufacture methamphetamine, and provide funds for meth lab cleanup, law enforcement and child protection.

So I hope that my colleagues both sides of the aisle will join in this fight. This is a real blight on our country and is creating a devastation throughout our country, but particularly in the rural area.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this concurrent resolution. I want to congratulate Big Brothers Big Sisters on 100 years of service. I think any organization that lasts for 100 years is certainly doing some things correctly.

At this time, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very difficult time to be a young person in our Nation. We have a great deal of family instability. Roughly 50 percent of our children today are growing up without both biological parents, so they have suffered some serious dysfunction in their lives. Roughly 22 million young people today are fatherless, and of course they are moving into a world in which a drug and alcohol culture and violence is quite prevalent. So it is very, very difficult.

We find that mentoring is one way that we can help these young people negotiate their way through a very difficult world. Mentoring works. As my colleague from Ohio mentioned earlier, it improves graduation rates and it improves school attendance. One of the programs I work with very closely improves attendance by 80 percent. It improves grades significantly. The program I am involved with, about a 40 percent improvement. It improves peer and family relationships and even improves personal hygiene, which is something that many people do not realize. It decreases drug and alcohol abuse in many programs by as much as 50 percent. It decreases crime, gang membership, teen pregnancy, and dropout rates.

So this is about the best thing we have going, and it is very important to remember that it is very cost effective. It costs about $30,000 a year to lock somebody up, and yet most mentoring programs, some of the very best ones, cost maybe $400 to $500 per mentee per year. So we cannot have a better return on investment than that.

I serve as a mentor. I have been mentoring a young person now for about 3 years, and I had another young person for 4 or 5 years before that. My wife also mentors. A mentor is somebody who cares, somebody who shows up. An awful lot of young people in our culture today do not have an adult in their life that they can count on; that they know cares about them unconditionally and will be there for them through thick and thin.

A mentor is somebody who affirms. Again, so many young people today in our culture do not have anyone in their lives who say ``I believe in you, I see some talent, I think you could be a mechanic, I think you could be someone who can go to a community college, I think you could do well in school.'' So affirmation is something that all of us have to have in order to live effectively, and a mentor provides that.

A mentor is someone who provides a vision of what is possible, because so many times a young person grows up in a family where no one has graduated from high school, no one has gone to college, no one has set any type of vision out there for them as to what they might be. So a mentor oftentimes fulfills that role.

According to the National Mentoring Partnership, 18 million children in our country today need a mentor, yet only about 2.5 million actually are being mentored. Big Brothers Big Sisters accounts for roughly one- tenth of that number. So we have a huge gap from what is needed to what we are actually getting done.

We had a mentoring amendment attached to the No Child Left Behind bill that last year was funded at $50 million. This year, that money is in jeopardy. A lot of that money went to Big Brothers Big Sisters. So I would certainly like to encourage my colleagues to support this program and further this cause, because we have reached hundreds of thousands of young people as a result of it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill.

As everyone knows, high energy costs are the greatest drag that we currently have on our economy and actually on world economy; and every year we delay passing this legislation, we become more dependent on foreign oil.

I would like to mention very quickly a small part of the energy bill which has to do with ethanol and biodiesel. The bill mandates 5 billion gallons of ethanol production by 2012. Interestingly enough, here this year, in 2005, we will produce 4.5 billion, so we are almost there. Next year, 2006, we will produce well over 5 billion which will be 7 years before the end date of 2012. So we have great capacity to do even better.

Ethanol today is produced in 20 different States, and I predict that within a few years, using biomass, all 50 States in the Union will produce some form of ethanol.

Today the average price of a gallon of gasoline is reduced by 29 cents by the ethanol production that we now have. The average price around the country is about $2.20. Without ethanol today, it would be roughly $2.50.

Ethanol increases the price of corn by between 25 and 50 cents a bushel. What is so big about that? The important thing is, it reduces the cost of the farm bill because as prices of corn go up, we have fewer farm payments. So over the next 10 years ethanol production will reduce the cost of the farm bill by roughly $6 billion.

It reduces the trade deficit by $64 billion over the next 8 years. It creates 243,000 jobs and adds $200 billion to GDP over the next 8 years. So it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We think this is critical and has great potential.

At the present time, Brazil mandates 23 percent of their fuel supply be from ethanol. We certainly could hit 7 or 8 percent in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, so often when we hear of events in the Middle East the reports are negative, sometimes even the discussion on the floor reflects a great deal of negativism.

Recently, I led a delegation to Jordan and Iraq and later to Germany. Matter of fact, we just returned yesterday. And I thought I would report on what I saw there because so often soldiers say we really wish you would go back and tell the American people the war we are fighting and not the one that they see on television or in the newspapers.

So, on previous trips, I had been amazed at how positive the morale was. Everyplace that I went, soldiers seemed to be rather upbeat, pulled together, seemed to have a sense of mission.

As we flew into the Al Asad, which is a somewhat remote base about 90 miles west of Baghdad out in the desert, extreme cold, no vegetation, no trees, no grass, as we landed there in the dust and the sand, I thought, this is the place where we are going to see some people who are really pretty negative about what is going on, and I was really surprised.

There were 180 Nebraskans from my home State there. That is why I went there. They had not had a CODEL there for at least 9 months, maybe never there. And again I saw the same thing, a sense of accomplishment, a real sense of pride in what they were doing. I pressed them, and I talked to them, and I still got no negative comments and no major complaints.

We went on down to Baghdad, and we talked to General Petraeus, who is in charge of training the Iraqi soldiers, and General Casey, who is in charge of the overall command there. General Casey made the point that the infrastructure still needs improving. Obviously, the electricity is better, but it is still not working all the time. Sewage at times is not what it should be; and, at times, their oil pipelines are getting blown up. But, again, there is general improvement, but they both said the January 30 elections were truly a watershed event. Since that time, there has been a definite qualitative shift in what is happening in Iraq.

I thought I would just point out some of the things that we were told and some of the things that we observed.

General Casey said, and General Petraeus as well, that by the end of the year Iraqi troops should be out in front in all concentrations in Iraq. They would have, in many cases, U.S. backup, but there are right now several areas of Iraq that are totally controlled, with no U.S. backup, by Iraqi forces. So the training of the Iraqis has been excellent.

The Iraqi intelligence is improving. Many Iraqis are now coming forward with information regarding insurgents that were not coming forward before. The attacks have been reduced, and the Iraqis are certainly much more confident of their future.

Apparently, many of the Sunnis are regretting not having participated in the elections, and at this point they are beginning to volunteer for the army, for the police, which was something that was unheard of a few months ago, and the Sunnis are pressing to get a place at the table in the new government.

There is no shortage of Iraqi recruits apparent at the present time. There are roughly 100 battalions of army Iraqis, 152,000 total have been trained and equipped, 85,000 police, 67,000 members of the army. The Iraqis have been provided with up-armored vehicles, body armor, about 130,000 sets. So they are well over halfway to their goal of 270,000 Iraqi soldiers trained.

Also, the Iraqis are performing much better, whether they are policemen or soldiers. The recent instigation or uprising in downtown Baghdad by al Sadr, where we have several thousands of his supporters demonstrating, it was well-orchestrated, but the thing that we did not hear was that whole situation was controlled by Iraqi police, with no U.S. backup, and so we find that they are much in control of the situation.

We also had a chance to talk to Mr. al Jafari, the prime minister. When we asked him what he wanted to say to the American people, he had just been installed as prime minister the day before we saw him, he said, the thing I would like to say is we owe a debt of gratitude to the United States and particularly for the loss of soldiers. He said, when you sent your soldiers over here and the sacrifices they made, it is something we can never forget, and that we will always be grateful for.

We asked him if he would have an inclusive government, if he would include the Kurds and Sunnis and Shiites. He said he would, and that remains to be seen, because he is linked with a very conservative Islamic Shiite party that has some ties to Iran. So I guess the proof will be in the pudding,

and we will see what he does. He was very cordial, nice and intelligent; and, of course, they have a President at the present time, a Kurd named Talabani.

We also were heartened by the progress women had made in Iraq, because at the present time every third name on the ballot last January 30 was a female name. So we will have about 80 representatives of the 275 member delegates to the constitutional convention.

So, all in all, Mr. Speaker, we think things are better. They are not perfect, but it is heartening to see the progress that has been made.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. She has done an excellent job of describing some of the benefits of the ethanol industry. I wish to join her and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and others in introducing the Fuels Security Act, which will be introduced in the House next week.

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, the United States produced 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol. A couple, 3 years ago, that would have been an unheard of amount. At that time we were producing less than 2 billion gallons of ethanol per year. Yet this year, 1 year later, in 2005, that 3.6 billion will go to 4.5 billion gallons. So the ethanol industry is really ramping up. There are a lot of new ethanol plants out there and a tremendous amount of product that is being produced. Roughly one- third of the fuels in the United States today are blended with ethanol. So we have gone from maybe 5 or 10 percent, roughly 30 percent, a tremendous increase.

There are currently 20 States that are now producing ethanol. At one time, it was assumed that ethanol was the product of only two or three or four corn-producing States. Now we see ethanol plants in places like California, Kentucky, and other States around the country. Eventually, I would hazard a guess that probably all 50 States at some point will produce ethanol.

The thing that we need to realize is that ethanol can be produced from almost any type of biomass. It does not have to be corn; it does not have to be sorghum. It can be switch grass, in some cases it can be garbage, it can be a lot of things that we are trying to get rid of. So we think that the industry is something that can definitely be a tremendous benefit to the Nation as time goes on.

As the gentlewoman from South Dakota mentioned, the ethanol industry significantly reduces the price of gasoline. I think almost every American today is feeling the impact of high fuel prices. So based on $2 a gallon, and almost all of us realize that it is more like $2.22, but if it is based on $2 per gallon, if you took the ethanol industry out of the picture, gasoline would go up 29 cents. So a $2 gallon of gas would be $2.29. So if you are paying $2.20 in your home community, that means that if ethanol went away, you would be paying roughly $2.51, $2.52 a gallon; something like that. So ethanol produces a benefit for everyone; whether you burn ethanol in your tank or not, it is important to the economy.

As was mentioned earlier, refiners would have to import an additional 217,000 barrels of high-grade fuel per day if ethanol disappeared. That would be very, very expensive. As my colleagues know, just normal petroleum is $56, $57 a barrel, and high-grade would be even higher than that. Currently, imports of petroleum are a major drag on our economy. Probably the number one thing holding our economy back is the amount of money that we are spending on petroleum from other nations. We are importing roughly 55 percent of our petroleum, and so ethanol moves us away from that. It is not the whole answer, but it certainly is a very significant part of improving the economy.

Currently, ethanol uses roughly 11 or 12 percent of the U.S. corn crop. Last year, we had a record crop of 12 billion bushels. Now, if we had not had ethanol using up about 11 or 12 percent, we would have had a tremendous hit in our prices. As it was, corn went from $2.60, to $2.70 a bushel down to about $1.85, $1.90 at the low. But if it was not for ethanol, we would have seen that down around $1.50, $1.40, because ethanol adds about 25 cents to 50 cents per bushel for the farmer, and we think this is tremendously important to the farm economy. As we will see here in a minute, this has an impact on the farm payments that are laid out by the average taxpayer. So as the corn price goes down, farm payments go up. And when farm payments go up, the taxpayer is hit harder. So again, ethanol certainly is good for the taxpayer.

As has been mentioned previously by the gentlewoman from South Dakota, the environment certainly benefits from the ethanol industry. I believe that she did mention that tailpipe emissions are decreased by roughly 50 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions, which are very harmful to the ozone and the environment, are reduced by roughly 30 percent; and it is estimated that greenhouse gases are reduced by something like 7 million tons, so 7 million tons come out of the atmosphere because of ethanol; and we think that is a tremendous benefit.

As was mentioned earlier, at one point, we had a 2 percent oxygenate requirement for our fuel. So the oxygenate requirement was met by two different fuels. MTBE provided a little bit more than 1 percent of that 2 percent, and ethanol provided about eight-tenths of 1 percent. MTBE has been proven to pollute ground water, so roughly 20 States have now outlawed MTBE; and as a result, something has to fill that void and that is where ethanol has come in to play.

At the outset, many people said ethanol will never be able to produce enough gallons to fill that void, but there has been a ripple. We have found that ethanol has been transported to California, to New York, other places where it was assumed that it could never be adequate to fill the demand, and we have seen that supply filled very adequately.

As was mentioned, the legislation we are proposing removes the 2 percent oxygenate requirement, which has been very burdensome in some areas, and we think that that flexibility will be very helpful to them. The economy, of course, benefits. We would assume that something like 150,000 new jobs will be added each year because of the ethanol industry; and over the course of this bill, between 2005 and 2012, roughly 243,000 new jobs would be created. It will add roughly $200 billion to the gross domestic product between 2004 and 2012, and the biggest thing that I see right now as far as trade is the thing that is causing a huge trade deficit is basically our imports of petroleum products.

So the ethanol industry reduces that trade deficit by about $5 billion a year and between 2004 and 2012, it will cut that trade deficit about $64 billion. So that is a huge impact on our economy.

So we are doing better with ethanol. But we can do better yet, because Brazil currently mandates 25 percent of their petroleum come from ethanol. Of course, Brazil also is a major exporter to other countries of ethanol. As was mentioned earlier, we currently, I think in Nebraska, which I represent a big part of that State, we have 5 E-85 stations which are stations that pump 85 percent ethanol. And those gallons are roughly 40 to 50 percent, or 40 to 50 cents cheaper per gallon than standard gasoline. As time goes on, we are going to see more and more of this occurring.

The other thing that I might mention is that the ethanol industry has a by-product. Besides ethanol, you are producing usually feed for animals from the by-product, but the thing that many people do not realize is the spinoffs from the ethanol industry are going to be huge. Some of the by-products that we are going to have, Creatine, which is a muscle-building substance which is safe, can be used, can be made from some of the residue. Biodegradable plastic in the wet milling plants are being created. So I think as time goes on, biotechnology is going to be important, and we will see a huge benefit from the overall ethanol industry.

I might also mention that biodiesel is going to be a major part of the legislation that we are introducing. And, of course, that usually uses soybeans in production. But biodiesel is going to make diesel fuel cheaper, more efficient, and will cause much less wear and tear on diesel engines. So we think these things are all very important.

I am going to now turn to just a couple of visuals. As was mentioned earlier, one thing that so often people do not understand about ethanol is the assumption that it takes a lot of energy to produce ethanol. But what we see here is that for every unit of energy that goes into the manufacture of ethanol, you get 1.4 units of energy out.

And so what that means is that in order to run a tractor to plant the crop, to run a combine to harvest the crop, to run the refinery to make the ethanol, if you are going to pump some water out of the ground to irrigate, these are all of those energy costs which are usually petroleum fuels, which we would have to do with gasoline, or diesel or propane or whatever.

So you get a net gain of four-tenths of a Btu. And in contrast, if you look at a gallon of gasoline, for every unit of energy that you use, you use 1 Btu, you get eight-tenths of a Btu back after you have processed and refined the gasoline. So you lose energy. It is a net loss instead of a net gain.

If it is MTBE that you are after, you get actually only .67 Btus back from 1 Btu of energy. So the reason for that, again, as was mentioned earlier, is that here we are harnessing the sun, it is renewable fuel, and so that gain that you get is from solar energy that is converted into fuel. And we think that is an interesting thing, it is an economy, and it certainly benefits the environment as well.

Just a few other facts and I will point out here before I yield back. The ethanol energy will add roughly $51 billion to farm income over 10 years. And Mr. King and Ms. Herseth and I all come from ag States, and the farm economy is struggling in most cases. Some people are doing pretty well, but a lot of people are marginal. In the State of Nebraska at one time we had 135 million farmers. Today we have roughly 48 million. And so all of those people have gone out of business because it is simply not very profitable. So when you find a value-added product that will add $51 billion to farm economy, this is something that we think is very, very important.

We mentioned that it will reduce government farm payments. Many people in urban areas do not like to see some parts of the farm bill. They do not like to see the price supports. Well, what has happened here is because the ethanol industry raises the cost of corn, the price of corn, by 25 to 50 cents a bushel, that means that as those prices get higher, there is less farm payments, because you do not have to make up the loan deficiency payments. So as a result there is the benefit of about $5.9 billion in less tax dollars in the farm bill over the course of 10 years.

We mentioned that it reduces the trade deficit by roughly $34 billion, and that is over a period of time, and significantly reduces air pollution. As we mentioned, 7 million tons of greenhouse gases would be reduced each year. So some of this is a little redundant, but it does not hurt to repeat it.

I am sure that Mr. King will say a few of these things over. But we feel that we have a good piece of legislation here. And I would like to thank the gentlelady for being part of this, for hosting this this evening, and for her part in introducing the legislation.

Mr. King also has been certainly a very strong proponent of renewable fuels. And so we hope to work together, and we hope to convince enough of our colleagues, many of whom are from urban areas, and many of whom have been imbued with the idea that ethanol is sort of a giveaway to the rural States, that this really is a win-win, this is something that is good for all of us, and it is certainly good for the country.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.