Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to convey my disappointment with the decision of the conferees to ignore the clear and bipartisan wishes of the vast majority of the Members of this body to restore crucial Medicaid funding to this budget. Tuesday night I offered a motion that passed overwhelmingly to instruct the conferees to restore cuts to Medicaid and include a $1.5 million reserve fund for the creation of a bipartisan Medicaid commission. We know that Governors across the country are opposed to Medicaid cuts because these cuts will pass the burden directly on to States, to providers, and to the millions of Americans whose health care depends on Medicaid. In a statement released this morning, the National Governors Association made clear its position has not changed. It states: ``Medicaid reform must be driven by good policy and not the Federal budget process.'' I want to be clear. No one is saying that we do not need to reform Medicaid. No one is saying we should not be trying to find savings or to make Medicaid more efficient. And, yes, let us find proposals to improve the program. But let us not let arbitrary budget cuts drive the reform. Let us not just cut the budget and call it reform. And let us not rashly and substantially decrease funding without adequate time to deliberate meaningful reform measures and without some time to implement those measures. A majority of this body agrees, a majority of the Senate agrees, a majority of the Governors agree, and a majority of Americans agree. That is a pretty clear mandate. And for the conferees to ignore these clear majorities it is irresponsible. I urge the 348 Members who voted in favor of the motion on Tuesday to vote against this conference report tonight.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), my esteemed colleague and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HERSETH. I would inquire as to the balance of our time remaining, Madam Speaker.

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, to explain the motion, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The House-passed budget directs the Committee on Energy and Commerce to cut spending on programs within its jurisdiction by $20 billion over 5 years. The vast majority of this $20 billion in spending cuts, if not all of it, will likely fall on Medicaid. I and many of my colleagues in this body strongly oppose this language. The majority of our counterparts in the Senate apparently share some of our concerns. The Senate approved an amendment by Senators Smith and Bingaman to strike reconciliation instructions in the Senate budget that would have directed the Committee on Finance to cut spending by $15 billion over 5 years, which all would have been from Medicaid. The Senate amendment also created a reserve fund allowing for the creation of a bipartisan commission on Medicaid reform. This motion protects Medicaid by instructing conferees to follow the Senate's lead and strike reconciliation instructions that target Medicaid for funding cuts and instead include a $1.5 million reserve fund for the creation of a bipartisan Medicaid reform commission. Forty-four of my Republican colleagues in the House recently wrote a letter to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, urging him to remove Medicaid reductions in the budget resolution. In this letter they stated, ``We are concerned that the inclusion of up to $20 billion in reductions from projected growth in the Medicaid program will negatively impact people who depend on the program and the providers who deliver health care to them . . .'' ``We strongly urge you to remove these reductions and the reconciliation instructions targeted at Medicaid and, in their place, include a $1.5 million reserve fund for the creation of a bipartisan Medicaid Commission . . .'' Fifty-two Senators, including several Republicans, voted to strike Medicaid cuts in the Senate budget resolution and instead allow for the creation of a bipartisan Medicaid commission. The amendment's sponsor in the Senate, Mr. Smith of Oregon, stated that ``I would rather do this right than do this fast . . . I don't know where the original Senate cut of $14 billion came from. But I know what it is going to mean: another 60,000 Oregonians may be losing health care, pressuring private plans, overwhelming emergency rooms.'' During that same debate, Senator McCain of Arizona stated that ``cuts to Medicaid that result in reduction of covered individuals would flood hospital emergency rooms with additional uninsured patients, forcing hospitals to absorb additional costs for uncompensated care.'' And Governors are virtually unanimous in their opposition to allowing arbitrary budget cuts to drive Medicaid policy. For example, the Republican Governor of Ohio said, ``We do not support recommendations that would save the Federal Government money at the expense of the States.'' Perhaps Arkansas's Republican Governor stated it best when he said, ``People need to remember that to balance the Federal budget off the backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable.'' And the American people agree. Four out of five Americans oppose cutting Medicaid to reduce the Federal debt, according to a poll released today by AARP. Across the country many hospitals, assisted living centers, and nursing homes have high Medicaid utilization rates and are reliant on Medicaid as a major source of funding. But Medicaid is not keeping pace with the cost of providing health care. This is particularly true in rural States like South Dakota, which is one of the States hit hardest by Medicaid's shortfalls. According to a new report to be released tomorrow, Medicaid long-term care for economically disadvantaged elderly persons is underfunded by $4.5 billion annually. The results are both real and devastating. In 2004, South Dakota's Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society facilities saw a net operating loss for Medicaid patients of over $3.5 million for the year. In January the Good Samaritan Society announced it would be closing three facilities in eastern South Dakota. This means that for some South Dakotans, they will not have access to the medical and long-term care services they need, or they will find themselves moving further from their families in order to find an available facility. This also means the loss of jobs in our smaller communities. And it means as a Nation we are failing our poor, our elderly, and our rural communities. Talk of cutting $20 billion out of the Medicaid system over the next 5 years is completely at odds with the needs of people in South Dakota and across America. In fact, a coalition of 135 organizations that represent groups ranging from medical specialties to faith-based groups have asked the conferees to eliminate all proposed reductions in Federal funding for Medicaid from the final fiscal year 2006 budget. The letter, signed by the American Diabetes Association, Catholic Charities USA, and other organizations, said that the ``elimination of such cuts is essential for the health and long-term care of Medicaid enrollees, the providers who serve them, and State and local units of governments.'' That is why this motion is so important. It protects this critical program by instructing conferees to follow the Senate's lead and strike reconciliation instructions that target Medicaid for funding cuts. I urge my colleagues to support this motion and to protect Medicaid. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democrat whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Democratic leader, the esteemed gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank all of my colleagues who spoke in support of this motion to instruct conferees, including the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and his willingness to encourage his Republican colleagues to support this important motion. In response to the closing of the gentleman from Iowa, I do not stand here today, nor do my colleagues, suggesting that we do nothing. I do not stand here today suggesting we cannot find savings. I do not stand here today suggesting that we cannot find a way, in a bipartisan manner, to reform Medicaid. To the extent that there are press releases that go out to constituents who will be breathing a sigh of relief, from Governors to health care providers, to advocates of disabled citizens and the elderly and children, it will be that we found agreement in this body to supplement the important work of the Governors across this country to undertake real reform, to find those savings but not to let arbitrary cuts drive the reform; and that is exactly what the House budget resolution did. It is exactly what this motion to instruct conferees attempts to set right. Those in my generation understand that we cannot do nothing, whether it comes to Social Security reform or Medicaid reform; but we also understand that the facts speak for themselves, that we have time to do this right, rather than to work so fast and to let arbitrary cuts of $20 billion over 5 years drive the reform; that it should truly have a commission and the $1.5 million today this motion to instruct would encourage to have set aside in the reserve fund to have a bipartisan commission undertake this important task of reform.

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) for yielding me time to voice my support for the Native American Housing Enhancement Act of 2005, and I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Committee on Resources, for introducing this important legislation. As my colleagues have indicated, the Native American Housing Enhancement Act of 2005 will ensure that Congress's intent is carried out with respect to tribal access to new NAHASDA funds. The gentleman from Arizona made the compelling point that the act will also create a more appropriate civil rights standard for tribal governments administering USDA housing programs and will give tribes access to an important housing and youth services program known as Youthbuild. In my conversations with tribal leaders and tribal housing officials from across the State of South Dakota, the message is consistent. There is a desperate need for more housing in Indian Country. This is because historically there has been inadequate funding provided for housing programs. For instance, on the Pine Ridge Reservation, home to the Oglala Sioux Tribe in southwest South Dakota, current NAHASDA funding levels are insufficient to allow them to address their very acute housing needs. In Pine Ridge it is not uncommon to have 25 individuals or more living in one housing unit. I hear similar concerns from other tribes, from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in the north to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate in eastern South Dakota, and please bear in mind that these reservations are located in an area of the country where temperatures can reach 25 below or colder in the wintertime. Adequate housing on South Dakota's reservations is truly a matter of life and death. This legislation is a meaningful step in the right direction. It would allow tribes unrestricted access to new NAHASDA funds, even if they still maintain program income from previous years. This will ensure that tribal governments are not punished for developing successful income-generating housing stock. This legislation is a top priority of the United Native American Housing Association, a regional group that represents 32 housing programs in the HUD Northern Plains Region, including all of South Dakota. It also is similar to legislation introduced in the Senate this year by my colleague Tim Johnson. Of course, there is much more to be done. Congress should acknowledge and live up to the treaty obligations that we have with tribes across the country and respect the sovereignty of tribal governments. One way to do this is by responding to the substantial housing needs on our reservations by funding NAHASDA at a level that will allow tribal members to live with dignity in safe, sanitary housing. Mr. Speaker, I hope the passage of this legislation emphasizes the current housing needs in Indian Country and resonates with my colleagues. It is a step in the right direction, but we can and we must do more.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) very much for sharing his perspectives based on historical development of the industry, the challenges that we faced in the past and clearly the opportunities that we have today and in the future to utilize ethanol and other renewable fuels as part of a national energy policy. I appreciate as well his thoughtful insights as it relates to the investment in rural America, the impact in a positive way on rural communities, how rural America has stepped up as well to provide capital for investment in the technologies that are necessary to begin and expand and construct the ethanol facilities. Also, the points made about the potential impact, the positive impact that ethanol production and increasingly utilizing renewable energies and our national energy policy and increasing the blend that can have on our trade balance, as well as clearly the positive environmental impact of ethanol and renewable energy. So I want to thank again both my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), as well as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for their prior work and their commitment to ensuring that renewable energy is a core component of our national energy policy, demonstrating not only the regional support but the bipartisan support for the legislation that we will be introducing. Renewable fuels such as ethanol already constitute, as we have shown, a significant portion of our Nation's energy portfolio. They reduce the cost of petroleum and are home grown, clean, efficient, and economically beneficial to rural America. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues not to believe the myths and misinformation of the past, and to fairly evaluate or reevaluate the role of ethanol and other renewable fuels as a core component of our national energy policy. I firmly believe that Congress must enact policies that will facilitate the positive impact of the renewable fuels industry because it will, in turn, benefit the entire country. We will be introducing this legislation in the coming days, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important initiative, to join their colleagues such as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and a number of others who will introduce this legislation.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage in a dialogue with my colleagues about the policy choices that we must make in the coming weeks and months to address the energy needs and challenges that our country will face in the years and decades to come. I believe that renewable fuels must play a central role in this debate and in the policy decisions that we in Congress will make this year. I have a strong interest in renewable fuels for several reasons. My home State of South Dakota is a major corn-producing State and one of the top five ethanol-producing States in the Nation. South Dakota alone has the capacity to produce more than 450 million gallons of clean renewable ethanol every year. This fact, of course, gives me a natural interest in renewable fuel production. That, however, is not the only reason I care about ethanol. And each of us who serves in Congress should care about renewable fuels as well. Renewable fuels provide benefits to the economy, especially those in economically challenged rural years. They benefit the environment, and they enhance our national security. For all of these reasons, Congress should care about renewable fuels, and renewable fuels should be a major component in our Nation's long-term energy policy. I sought this opportunity to address the House tonight to share with my colleagues important information about renewable fuels and to dispel some myths about ethanol along the way. Ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, is essentially pure grain ethanol that man has been making for centuries by fermenting and distilling simple sugars. Today, ethanol is a fuel produced from crops such as corn, grain sorghum, wheat, sugar, and other agricultural feedstocks. Most fuel ethanol produced in the United States is derived from corn, and the industry uses a lot of it. The latest figures indicate that more than 10 percent of the U.S. corn crop is utilized to produce ethanol. Because ethanol is produced from crops or plants that harness the power of the sun, it is truly a renewable fuel. We have consistently increased our use of corn to produce ethanol every year in the United States. We are doing so because the demand for ethanol is growing and consumers are realizing its value. The ethanol industry is growing despite the many myths that have intervened at various points in the historical development of ethanol that misrepresent the technological advancements and the state of the industry today. Some of this misinformation, or disinformation, has been promoted by opponents of the ethanol industry, and some myths have even been propagated by those in academia. One of the most persistent ethanol myths refers to its energy balance. This myth suggests that the process used to create a gallon of ethanol consumes more energy than that gallon of ethanol contains. And despite overwhelming and irrefutable evidence to the contrary, this unfortunate fallacy persists. But the facts are clear, whether produced from corn or other grains or from biomass materials like wood waste, ethanol production has become an extremely energy-efficient process. Remarkable technological advances have occurred in both agriculture and ethanol production in recent years that have made this possible. Farming practices today are vastly improved from what they were just a few decades ago. Gasoline-powered farm machinery has been entirely replaced by more efficient diesel engines, and the machinery has become larger. This means that farmers can produce more grain with less fuel. Some farmers today utilize global positioning satellites and no-till farming methods that also greatly increase yields and reduce the fertilizer and chemical use on fields. The industry also has developed corn varieties that enable farmers to produce significantly larger yields on the same piece of ground. Ethanol plants are located in predominantly rural areas, close to the cornfields, and the trucks and trains that move the corn from the farm to the marketplace also become more efficient. The technology used in ethanol plants also has greatly advanced in recent years. The industry itself has developed advanced enzymes that break down the starches in corn much more efficiently than in the past. Ethanol plants now employ molecular sieves that remove moisture from ethanol much more efficiently than old methods. They also utilize efficient natural gas burners to fuel the fermentation process. All of these developments have significantly improved the efficiency of both corn and ethanol production and the net energy balance of the process. This efficiency is confirmed by a 2004 analysis completed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Argonne National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory operated by the University of Chicago. These entities analyzed ethanol's entire production cycle and concluded that ethanol yields 167 percent of the fossil energy that is used to grow, harvest and refine the grain and transport the ethanol to gasoline terminals for distribution. Ethanol also can be produced from cellulose feedstocks, such as rice straw, corn stover and sugarcane residue. As we improve the technology necessary to utilize these feedstocks, ethanol will achieve an even more favorable net energy balance. Some have, unfortunately, propagated the myth that ethanol increases the cost of gasoline. But when you examine the facts, you see that the exact opposite is true. Ethanol expands U.S. fuel supplies, competes with fossil fuels in the marketplace, and reduces the overall gasoline prices paid by the driving public. Like many of you, I was back in my home district over the Easter work period talking to South Dakotans. We are all well aware of what the price of gasoline has done in the past few months and how it affects our constituents. The price of ethanol, however, is largely unaffected by world oil prices, and it has not experienced the increases in price that petroleum has. Today the net cost of ethanol to refiners is below the average wholesale price of gasoline in the United States. This means that blending ethanol into the gasoline supply actually reduces the cost of gasoline by displacing high-octane petroleum components. In fact, earlier today I checked on the gas prices in my hometown of Brookings, South Dakota. Premium gasoline at the BP gas station along Interstate 29 in Brookings is selling for $2.45 a gallon. Regular gas is going for $2.35. By contrast, E-85, which is a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, is selling for $1.88, 57 cents per gallon cheaper than premium petroleum. American auto companies are beginning to recognize the value of ethanol as well. General Motors recently provided an E-85-capable Chevrolet vehicle to the Governor of South Dakota as part of a campaign to promote ethanol and E-85-capable vehicles. This is part of a campaign by GM and the Governor's Ethanol Coalition designed to increase awareness of ethanol and flexible fuel vehicles and to promote the increased use of E-85 as a renewable alternative transportation fuel. U.S. ethanol plants have produced record amounts of ethanol over the last 6 years to meet the increased demand. Without ethanol our country would be even more reliant on foreign imports of oil, and the pain at the pump would be much more severe. In the end the ethanol industry is not resting. Over the last 25 years, 81 new ethanol plants have been built, and 16 additional plants are under construction today. In that same time period, not a single new U.S. refinery has been built, and scores have been closed. While we must address refining capacity issues as part of a balanced national energy policy as well, ethanol can play an increasing role in meeting growing demand. The chart I put up now reflects the historic development within the United States of fuel ethanol production beginning in 1980 through 2004, reflecting the point that I mentioned about how the ethanol industry is growing to meet demand in large measure based upon other policies passed by this body to promote the use of this renewable energy, and, again, in light of the technology advancements that I mentioned previously. A recent economic analysis entitled Ethanol and Gasoline Prices, by economist John Urbanchuk, found that ethanol production adds critical supply to the U.S. gasoline market. Without ethanol, gasoline demand would further outpace domestic supply and result in a major price spike. Specifically, the report found if gasoline is at $2 per gallon, gasoline prices would increase 14.6 percent, or 29.2 cents per gallon, without ethanol in the short term. Without ethanol, gasoline prices would increase 3.7 percent, or 7.6 cents per gallon, in the long term once refiners build new capacity or secure alternative sources of supply. Ethanol use will boost U.S. gasoline supplies by more than 3.3 billion gallons in 2005, as they did in 2004. Without ethanol, refiners would be forced to import an additional 217,000 barrels per day of high octane, clean-burning, gasoline-blending components. There is a reason that these numbers are so large. We already use a lot of ethanol in this country. It would probably surprise many in this body to know that today more than 30 percent of all gasoline sold in this country is blended with ethanol. Even more surprising to many, ethanol has already been seamlessly incorporated into the vehicle fuel markets in States like California, New York and Connecticut. This is because these States have to add oxygenates to their fuel to meet clean air standards, but have banned the use of a popular oxygenate called methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, because it is a known pollutant. And California is not alone. MTBE is already banned or being phased out in at least 20 States, and many more States are considering such a ban. This has forced these States to adopt the use of an alternative oxygenate, ethanol. The California Energy Commission has repeatedly confirmed that ethanol used in that State actually costs refiners less than the gasoline with which it is blended. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has found no price impact from the recent switch from MTBE to ethanol. Even the chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute stated last year that his organization has not seen a major price impact from State MTBE bans and the resulting switch to ethanol. As you can see, ethanol has the potential to become a more significant portion of our energy portfolio in this country today, and Congress should enact policies that recognize its value and promote even greater use in the future. Renewable fuels benefit more than just fuel supplies and gasoline prices. The increased use of ethanol has bolstered struggling rural economies across the Plains States. A 2002 study of the ethanol industry found that with an approximate cost of $60 million for 1 year of construction, an ethanol plant expands the local economic base by $110 million each year. Ethanol production generates an additional $19.6 million in household income annually. Tax revenue for local and State governments increases by at least $1.2 million per year. The ethanol industry operations and spending for new construction added $1.3 billion of tax revenue for the Federal Government and $1.2 billion for State and local governments during 2004. As you can see by the next map, ethanol production facilities today are located in many regions of the country, but they are concentrated throughout the Midwest and the Great Plains, and the Midwest and the Great Plains constitute a region of the country that has faced many economic challenges in recent years. It is important to note that many of these facilities have been funded or are owned by local farmers, who use them to increase the value of their corn and profit from the sale of the ethanol and allow them to get a greater percentage of the processing part of the chain of production, rather than just the cost of the commodity, of the corn, that is brought to the facilities. As I mentioned, increased ethanol use and the corresponding increase in the localized demand for corn raises the prices that family farmers receive for their crop. This in turn lowers Federal farm program costs and saves taxpayers money. In 2004, USDA estimated that ethanol production reduced farm program costs by $3.2 billion. The combination of spending for ethanol plant production and capital spending for new plants under construction added more than $25.1 billion to gross output in the United States economy in 2004. As you can see from the following chart, we are utilizing an ever- increasing amount of corn to produce ethanol in the country. This increasing amount of corn utilization also reflects an increase in the percentage of corn going to ethanol production, as the following chart demonstrates. Rather than spending billions of dollars in oil revenues to politically unstable foreign countries around the world, we should be promoting the increased use of this home-grown fuel source that benefits farmers, families and small communities across South Dakota, and clearly this chart here that demonstrates the impact on corn- producing States like South Dakota and throughout the Great Plains and the Midwest, the economic impact, as earlier charts have shown, is evident. Ethanol is one of the best tools we have to combat pollution caused by motor vehicle emissions. Ethanol contains 35 percent oxygen. Adding oxygen to fuel greatly enhances its combustion, which in turn reduces harmful tailpipe emissions. Adding ethanol also displaces high toxic gasoline components, such as benzene, a known carcinogen. Ethanol is nontoxic, water-soluble and quickly biodegradable. It will not cause the groundwater pollution problems that have been linked to MTBEs. Ethanol reduces particulate emissions, especially fine particulates that pose health risks to susceptible populations, including children, seniors and those with respiratory ailments. Importantly, ethanol is a renewable fuel. The ethanol production process represents a carbon cycle, where plants absorb carbon dioxide during growth, recycling the carbon released during fuel combustion. The use of ethanol-blended fuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 12 to 19 percent compared with conventional gasoline, according to the Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, Argonne states that ethanol use in the United States in 2004 reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 7 million tons, equivalent to removing the annual emissions of more than 1 million automobiles from the road. Ethanol is widely used in Federal clean fuel programs required by the Clean Air Act, including winter oxygenated fuels and reformulated gasoline, or RFG programs, in cities that exceed public health standards for carbon monoxide and ozone pollution. The American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago credits ethanol-blended RFG with reducing smog-forming emissions by an amazing 25 percent since 1990. It should be noted that when ethanol is blended with gasoline, it slightly raises the volatility of the fuel, which can lead to increased evaporation for certain emissions, particularly in warmer weather. But as is often the case, that is only half of the story. Blending ethanol and gasoline also dramatically reduces carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions. According to the National Research Council, carbon monoxide emissions are responsible for as much as 20 percent of smog formation. Additionally, ethanol-blended fuels reduce the tailpipe emissions of volatile organic compounds which also can pollute the atmosphere. Thus, the use of ethanol plays an important role in smog reduction, and on balance is considerably friendlier to the environment than petroleum. A recent study found that fuel blended with just 10 percent ethanol greatly reduces vehicle emissions. The use of E-10 results in a 50 percent reduction in tailpipe fine particulate matter emissions, up to a 30 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions, a 13 percent reduction in the amount of toxins emitted, and a 21 percent reduction in the potency of these toxins. Because of its demonstrated benefits to our water and air quality in this country, Congress should enact policies that promote the increased use of clean-burning ethanol as part of a broad national energy policy. Ethanol also can provide significant benefits in the area of energy security. Over the past several years, we have become increasingly dependent on imported petroleum to meet our energy needs. The U.S. imports about two-thirds of its oil, and some experts predict our dependence upon foreign crude oil could climb to 70 percent in the years to come. Much of this oil will come from the Middle East. Fears of additional terrorist attacks have added a risk premium to world oil prices. At the same time, developing nations such as China and India have increased their demand for oil. As a result, world oil prices are on the rise. Just last week a study released by investment bank Goldman Sachs declared that markets have entered what they describe as a ``superspike period'' that could enact 1970s-style price surges that drive oil prices as high as $105 a barrel. If this occurs, it will have an even more devastating impact on farmers and ranchers, small business owners, working families, commuters, transportation companies and airlines, and the overall impacts on the national economy will worsen. As a domestic renewable source of energy, ethanol can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase the United States' ability to control its own security and economic future by increasing the availability of domestic fuel supplies. As I just noted, the U.S. imports 64 percent of its petroleum needs today. By 2025, the Energy Information Administration predicts the U.S. will import 77 percent of its petroleum. World demand for oil will continue to increase, particularly in response to the emerging economies in China, India and Brazil. If, as predicted, U.S. domestic oil production fails to keep pace, petroleum could become so expensive that we will be forced to look for other sources of energy and new technologies to deal with these challenges. Renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel can be part of meeting these goals. They are grown here at home and are virtually infinite renewable sources. Increasing production here at home, especially from renewable sources, will make us a safer and more secure Nation. Creating a viable renewable fuels industry in the United States must be a central component of our comprehensive national energy policy. The ethanol industry has shown that it is capable of providing a significant contribution to our Nation's energy needs. It is incumbent upon Congress to implement policies that promote the development and production of ethanol and other renewable fuels. The ethanol industry is growing, as I have mentioned, to meet the demands of the marketplace for clean renewable fuels. And as this table shows, many States have responded to that call, as other States look to ethanol production as an increasing component of economic development. This table indicates current ethanol production capability and facilities and also reflects those currently under construction, and the overall amount of production capacity that the ethanol can withstand with current facilities and those that are in the planning stages and under construction today. So in addition to the over-3.6 billion gallons of current production capacity, existing ethanol plants undergoing expansion and the 16 new plants under construction will add an additional nearly 750 million gallons of production capacity. This continued expansion in ethanol production is necessary to meet the growing demand for alternatives to MTBE. The Federal ethanol program is providing economic stimulus to rural America, adding jobs, reducing the United States dependence on imported energy, reducing our bloated trade imbalance, and lowering auto emissions in our Nation's cities. All of these benefits accrue while consumers realize lower fuel prices at the pump for gasoline blended with ethanol. In the coming weeks, this body will be debating and hopefully passing a comprehensive energy policy that will address the long-term energy needs of the country. Because of the obvious and proven benefits that domestically produced ethanol and biodiesel provide, our national energy policy should encourage the increased production of renewable fuels across the country. Although the energy bill that the House passed last year did contain a renewable fuels standard, it was not adequate to meet the needs of the growing industry and adequately incentivize renewable fuels production. For that reason, in the upcoming days, I will be joining with a bipartisan group of colleagues in introducing the Fuels Security Act of 2005. This legislation, identical to a bill introduced in the Senate a few weeks ago, recognizes the benefits of ethanol and biodiesel and would promote their production in a realistic and economically viable way. It would provide benefits to rural America, benefits to our national energy security, and benefits to the environment without disrupting fuel supplies or increasing the cost of motor vehicle fuel. Specifically, our bill will accomplish several things. It sets forth a phase-in for renewable fuel volumes over 7 years, beginning with a 4 billion gallon requirement in 2006 and ending with 8 billion gallons in 2012. It contains an escalation clause that would allow for increases in the renewable fuels requirement beyond 2012. It creates a credit program for refiners, blenders, or importers who exceed minimum obligations, thus allowing them to trade these credits with other refiners and minimize market disruptions. Importantly, our approach does this in a way that would not enable excess credits to overhang the market and enable refiners to stymie the goals of the renewable fuels standard. It promotes the production of non-corn ethanol by crediting 1 gallon of cellulosis biomass ethanol to be equal to 2.5 gallons of corn-derived ethanol. It authorizes the EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy, to waive the renewable fuels mandate for any State that would experience severe economic or environmental harm from the mandate, or where there is inadequate domestic supply to meet the requirement. And it eliminates the 2 percent oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline under the Clean Air Act and ensures that fuel performance standards and toxic emissions limits under the Clean Air Act continue to be met. Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable approach to promoting these fuels, and it will provide benefits to our country for years to come. I now want to turn time over to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the State of Nebraska, who serves with me on the Committee on Agriculture who has been a leading proponent of ethanol production in the State of Nebraska and throughout the Great Plains to the benefit of the country. So I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Nebraska for sharing his insights as it relates to the state of the ethanol industry today, its capacity to meet our national energy needs, particularly in pointing out not only the use and the importance of the byproducts generated from ethanol production, and making specific note of how the legislation we intend to introduce affects biodiesel production as well, and encouraging our colleagues from urban areas to take a renewed look at ethanol. I now would like to yield as much as 18 minutes or as much as he would like to consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who clearly has been a leading advocate as well as introduced other important legislation in this Congress and in prior terms important to renewable energy and to ethanol.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to participate in votes on the floor of the House of Representatives on March 8 and 9, 2005. I was absent to attend the funeral of a relative back in South Dakota. I submit this statement today to establish for the record how I would have voted had I been present for these votes. On March 8, 2005, the House of Representatives held three votes. The first vote held was on approval of House Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question. The second vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and agree to the H.R. 133, a resolution providing funds for continuing expenses of standing and select committees of the House of Representatives during the month of April, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question. The final vote was on motion to suspend the rules and agree to the H.R. 122, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the study of languages and supporting the designation of a Year of Languages. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question. On March 9, 2005, the House of Representatives held five votes. The first vote held was roll No. 56 on an amendment by Mr. Conaway which would have exempted commercial motor vehicle operators working in field operations for the natural gas and oil industry from Federal hours-of-service rules. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question. The second vote held was roll No. 57, on an amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas to expand the types of agricultural commodities covered by the bill's exemption from the 2003 hours-of-service regulations to include livestock, food, feed, fiber and other farm products. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question. The third vote held was roll No. 58, on an amendment by Mr. Osborne of Nebraska that would grant the State of Nebraska the authority to harmonize its vehicle length limits with those of surrounding states during the grain harvest season. I strongly support this amendment and, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question. The fourth vote was roll No. 59, on an amendment by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota that would have prevented States and localities from collecting tolls on exiting highways. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question. The fifth vote was roll No. 60, on an amendment by Mr. Graves that would have eliminated ``vicarious liability'' language under certain State laws for motor vehicle rental and leasing companies. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on that question.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan for offering this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, we have asked literally hundreds of thousands of our best and brightest, many of them National Guard and Reservists from South Dakota, to serve overseas in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. We owe these brave men and women and their families a great deal for their sacrifice during these difficult times. What we owe them is the opportunity to make good on the American Dream that they have fought to defend. This motion would create an economic transition benefit, similar to Trade Adjustment Act assistance, for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who find themselves without employment. Additionally, too many of the brave men and women who are serving in the National Guard and Reserve forces have returned home to find their jobs gone and their families struggling to make ends meet. While our military personnel are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, they should not be worrying if their jobs will be there for them when they return home or what they will do if they are not. This motion to recommit would provide unemployed veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan with income support and intensive employment training and job relocation assistance so that they can successfully transition back into civilian life. I ask my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. Our returning servicemembers from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve no less.