Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007

Mr. President, I intend, in a few minutes, to call up a bill for passage, and I think I will be joined on the floor by Senator Reid at the appropriate time. The bill I am going to speak about in a minute is the Catastrophic Disaster Recovery Fairness Act of 2007, which I am proud to cosponsor with Senator Lott and others. We have been working on trying to get this bill cleared, and I will come back to that in a moment, but before I call this bill up for final passage, I would like to speak for a moment about the emergency supplemental bill that we passed.

The Congress must--and usually does--and is required to take care of emergency issues. These are situations that, by the nature of emergencies, we cannot plan for. The war we are prosecuting and trying to win has extended well beyond the boundaries that many of us believed initially, so there are new costs associated with that war. There have been emergencies right here in the country that have taken place that could never have been predicted or anticipated.

We are still recovering, as you know, from two of those very terrible storms, two of the worst to ever hit the United States of America, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The aftermath of those storms was the multiple failure of a levee system that has protected this great community for over 300 years. It is not just any city or any region, it is a very special historic city and region, the city of New Orleans. It is also of great economic significance for the Nation.

We could not necessarily predict this in our regular budgets, and so it is appropriate that we provide emergency funding for emergencies, and that is what the supplemental is. It isn't a war spending bill, it is an emergency bill. There are things associated with the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan that are emergencies, but there are things happening in the United States also that are emergencies.

For Senators to come to this floor and argue over the last 2 weeks that there are no emergencies in the United States that we need to take care of and that all we need to do is to focus on the war in Iraq, I would ask them to go home and talk to their constituents because that is not what my constituents are saying, Republicans and Democrats. I don't think that is what anyone is saying, any constituent in anybody's State. I think they are saying, whatever their feelings are about the war and how we should prosecute it, there are most certainly emergencies right here in the United States that need to be dealt with.

I am proud that many of us on the Democratic side, as well as some of our Republican friends, decided to put some money in this emergency supplemental bill to take care of real American emergencies right here on the home soil--right here in America. One of those emergencies is the ongoing attempts to rebuild the gulf coast, primarily in Louisiana and Mississippi, but we also have friends in the southern part of Texas who are still hurting and also in the southern part of Alabama and through some parts of Florida. So I like to always say we are fighting hard for the gulf coast and trying to rebuild the gulf coast.

This Congress has been generous, has been innovative, and has been trying to think outside of the box to respond to an unprecedented disaster. Again, the scope of this disaster is beyond anything we have attempted. You know the long and sorry record: When we went to call on FEMA, it showed up but it was weak, anemic, underled, and underresourced. When we called on the Red Cross, as respectable as that organization and that name is, and they have done remarkable work, they too were overwhelmed. This is a job that was beyond the ability of the tools that we normally have to rebuild, and so we have been scrambling as a Congress to redesign tools. Some we have done a good job on and some we haven't.

There is a lot of redtape we unwittingly created, and not with any ill intent, but that has been the consequences of many of the things we have passed. And so people are caught up in a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of redtape. There has been a lot of money thrown at them, which is very frustrating because they hear about it, they think they are going to get it, but they can't feel it because the bureaucracy has it basically tied up.

So part of what we have done in this supplemental, which is very good, is we have removed some of the redtape and added some additional funding where we thought we were short, so that the hundreds of thousands of people on the gulf coast who have lost their homes, who have lost their businesses, who have seen everything they have worked for, some for 50 years or 60 years, literally washed away by floodwaters or collapsed levees, they could have a chance to rebuild.

I feel very strongly about this. I have been very generous as an appropriator with help to foreign countries. I have helped send money to Afghanistan, to countries in Africa, and to South America. I was one of the first Senators on the ground when Hurricane

Mitch hit Honduras. I believe in helping people when they are in their hour of need. But I can tell you people on the gulf coast are starting to ask: Does anybody remember that we are here in the United States and we need help as well?

So that is what this supplemental bill did. Let me say a couple of things we tried to do in it.

We passed in this supplemental emergency spending bill for the United States of America a waiver of a 10-percent match. In every disaster, we require the locals to put up money. It makes sense, and normally it works, and that is appropriate. But in a case where the disaster is so catastrophic, let's say in St. Bernard Parish, which is the parish I represent, there were 67,000 people who lived there before the storm. It was a middle-class, working-class community. Every single home was destroyed. Every fire station was destroyed. Every police station was destroyed.

The sheriff had to swim out of the second floor with his deputies. He is a big, strong sheriff, thank goodness, and a good swimmer. If he wasn't, he would have drowned--Jack Stevens, my good friend. He swam out, literally saving his deputies. His headquarters was destroyed.

Now, I ask you: How is St. Bernard Parish going to come up with a 10- percent match? It sounds reasonable, but in this case it is not.

No. 2, these 10-percent waivers, or matches, have been waived before. In 32 of the last 38 disasters, they have been waived. I asked the administration and others to waive this one. They said ``no.'' So we have done it now, as a matter of fact, in this bill. Congress said yes, it is right that this be waived. It will not only provide several hundred million dollars more in emergency disaster money for Louisiana and Mississippi, but, most importantly, it will completely eliminate the 10-percent match requirement which is required on each individual project worksheet.

Now, somebody may ask how many project worksheets we have, which means how many individual public entities have requested rebuilding, whether it is a library or half a library; a wing of a school or a whole school; a light post or a sewer system. We have 23,000 of those project worksheets pending for Louisiana alone. Because of this 10- percent requirement, there is a NEPA review, a FEMA review, a HUD review--we are being reviewed to death. We can't do this in this fashion. We have to waive this 10 percent.

Not only will $750 million be immediately available, but more than the money, the redtape goes away. Ninety percent of the redtape goes away, and we can actually do what we say we are going to do, which is rebuilding the gulf coast, one fire station, one police station, one library at a time. This is not theory, this is practical. If you want to rebuild a city, you have to rebuild the fire stations, you have to rebuild the police stations, you have to actually rebuild homes, pave streets, et cetera, et cetera. All of this is at a slow crawl because of this 10 percent.

So I am proud of my colleagues who voted for this supplemental, because we waived this big piece of redtape, and I wish to thank them. I hope the President does not veto this bill because of that. I hope to be negotiating with the President and the administration in good faith to perhaps explain some things he is not quite understanding about the difficulty we are facing in the gulf coast and see if he can work with us to keep this waiver in place.

In addition, we put in the supplemental $1.3 billion for levees. One of the most memorable speeches the President made was in Jackson Square, and I was pleased he came down right after the storms and spoke in Jackson Square when there weren't many lights on in the whole region. We put up lights that night for that speech. Generators were brought in to turn the lights on so the President could be seen when he made the speech. The rest of the French Quarter was completely dark. If you were in the city that night he made that speech, you wouldn't have been able to see your hand in front of your face, but the world saw the President because we got generators to turn those lights on so he could be seen. When he stood there in the dark, he said he would do whatever his administration needed to do to rebuild the levees in this metropolitan area.

I am not talking about little rinky-dink levees, I am talking about federally authorized levees that collapsed because they were not funded correctly, they were not maintained correctly, and the Corps of Engineers has admitted it was their fault and they need to fix it. Where I come from, if you break something, you fix it. The Corps of Engineers' levees collapsed, and they need to fix them.

So here comes the supplemental request, and lo and behold there is no new money for levees. We get a request from the administration that it wanted to move $1.3 billion from one set of projects to another, claiming this set of projects isn't ready to go, and they want to move it from the east bank to the west bank. Senator Vitter and I discussed this, and we said ``no.'' The days of moving money from the east bank to the west bank, in hopes that next year we would come back and find some new money for the east bank, are over with. We did that for the last 40 years, and then 18 months ago New Orleans and the surrounding area went underwater.

No more moving the money. No more shell games. This supplemental says ``no,'' and we put in an additional $1.3 billion. We are not moving levee monies from one of our constituent groups to another constituent group in hopes we will come back next year and fill in the pot. It is akin to musical chairs. You keep moving chairs, and when the music stops, somebody is going to be without a chair. I am not doing that anymore.

Every person in south Louisiana and in Mississippi who deserves a federally protected levee is going to get it. Those levees are going to hold, and we are not moving this money around anymore. So that money is in the supplemental, and I thank Senator Byrd and Senator Murray and Senator Dorgan particularly for their strong support of that principle.

Two more things, and then I will call up this bill for discussion.

We also got some funding--and I thank Senator Kennedy particularly for his help in this--for recruiting teachers. I can't tell you how difficult it has been for our teachers, our parents, and our students. We did have a happy success story, though, regarding education. Since I have talked about things that didn't work, let me spend a minute talking about something that did work.

On Monday morning, when the city of New Orleans was 80 percent underwater, and we looked up and millions of people had fled their homes along the gulf coast, we realized there were about 330,000 children who had no school to go to on Monday morning. I want that to sink in for a minute. There were 330,000 children, from kindergarten to 12th grade, who had no school to go to on Monday morning. That was a problem, and we had no solution for it.

There was no tool in the toolbox. FEMA didn't have a plan. There was nothing we could do. So we thought for a minute, and between the work of this Congress, the administration, and the good people down in Louisiana and Mississippi, we came up with a plan that basically said this: If every parent will show up at a school and get your child registered, the Federal Government will send that school a check. Don't worry about it. You don't have to pay for it, we will take care of it.

It was a most extraordinary effort because, you know what, it worked. For the most part, after this major disaster, almost all of those 330,000 children actually attended school somewhere last year and the schools were actually reimbursed. So when people tell me Congress can't do anything well, I like to point this out, to say: Yes, sometimes we actually manage to do something really well. And that worked.

What we failed to realize, though, is it was not just the tuition for the children we had to send--whether they left parochial school and went to public or public school and went to parochial, we covered it, no questions asked. But what we didn't think about is what happens to the thousands of teachers whose schools were ruined, whose homes were flooded, whose churches were destroyed, and they had to move--but they want to come back now and teach--how do we get them to come back and live in a community that is so destroyed? What incentives can we give them to come back?

Many of these teachers are very dedicated, and many of them have come back under harsh conditions. But we think it might be wise, when you are trying to rebuild from a nuclear bomb explosion--and we hope that never happens--or a dirty bomb or Tsunami or major terrorist attack or perhaps just a terrible storm or tornado or hurricane, if you have to rebuild a devastated area, you need to encourage some key people to come back: doctors, nurses, teachers. We have some money in this bill to give the appropriate incentives for teachers to come back.

We are not just going to build the old school system we had which was failing students and disappointing parents and not really a very successful story. We are in the process, with the help of Republicans and Democrats here, of building a new kind of public school system.

So this money in this supplemental will help us to recruit quality teachers, to acknowledge what we are asking of them. Teaching under normal circumstances is difficult. To teach children in a classroom that is a temporary and sometimes wholly inadequate structure, where these children are living in trailers at night, where the teachers themselves have to live in 16-by-8 trailers--the least we could do is give them some financial incentive to just make it through the next year or two until we can stabilize the situation and rebuild the infrastructure of this city. I am excited about that.

I am not going to go into any more detail about the historic preservation funding. Obviously, people in America know that New Orleans and south Louisiana have some of the most historic structures in the Nation and that they are at risk. This additional funding helps us preserve that.

We also have some funding in here for our fisheries. Our fishermen are small businesspeople, many of them. They don't work on the land; they work on the water. They don't work in an office; they work on their boats. Their boats were destroyed. We don't think of them as businesspeople, but they are. Our disaster assistance has to take care of our farmers, our ranchers, our urban and rural--and our fisheries. We have determined we had not done enough for them and for their needs, so we have some money to help them.

People say: Where do we get this funding? It comes off budget. This country is a great country. It is one of the great benefits of belonging to a great and powerful nation--if your region gets devastated, the rest of the country's money will be pooled to help you. If something happens--and it did in New York--we all pool our resources to help out. Now New York is doing magnificently. There was a question, after 9/11, as to what would happen, but because we all helped and they did a great job, that area is being rebuilt. Even though we still mourn the loss of those 3,000 Americans who lost their lives and it is still a very sad thing for us to think about, we are proud of helping to rebuild that great city.

If something were to happen, Mr. President, in your State--and your State is a coastal State as well; you have had your share of disasters--even though your State is tiny and you might not be able to bail yourself out, you are part of a great nation that will step up and help you as well.

I would like to speak for a minute about the Catastrophic Disaster Recovery Fairness Act. I will ask, at the appropriate time, for this bill to be called up and to clear it by unanimous consent. This particular bill was not included in the supplemental. It has not been included in any other major legislation. This bill will eliminate a great barrier to construction of homes in the gulf coast.

People ask me all the time: Senator, how is it possible that we have sent over $100 billion and yet we cannot seem to get massive rebuilding underway? This is one of the answers, and I hope I can explain this simply and clearly because it will help people understand.

The Small Business Administration, in a disaster, will lend money to people if they qualify for a small business disaster loan, and 81,000 people in my State qualified and have received approval for a loan-- 81,000. That is a huge number of homes. That is not all the homes which were destroyed. We had 250,000 homes destroyed. Of those, 81,000 families qualified for a home loan through the Small Business Administration.

It was painfully slow. It took months for these applications to get out, with us beating them every day and working with them and pushing, pushing, with Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe, who were, together, terrific to push the SBA. Then we got rid of the SBA Director, we got a new SBA Director, and they pushed those loans out the door. The good news is 81,000 people have gotten loans. The bad news is that as soon as these same people get their Road Home grants, which they are entitled to under another program we created, the SBA is interpreting their law so as to require these homeowners to immediately pay back their loan.

This bill which I am sponsoring with Senator Lott will release the homeowners, the borrowers, from that obligation. They must repay the loan. This is not a loan-forgiveness program. If you borrowed money, you must repay it under the terms you borrowed it. This is not a charity. This is not loan forgiveness. You must repay it under the terms of your loan. But you don't have to pay it today. You don't have to pay it next week when you get your Road Home money. You can pay it under the terms that it was lent to you, whether it was 5 years or 20 years, whether it was at 2 percent or 4 percent or 6 percent.

Mr. President, 81,000 people in Louisiana and 31,000 people in Mississippi have been told: The good news is you got an SBA loan; the bad news is the minute you get your Road Home Program money from the Federal Government, you have to pay this loan in full.

Believe me, this was not our intention when we passed these community development block grants. I do not believe there is a Senator in this Chamber who would expect that of a homeowner who has lost everything. In some cases, they had insurance. In some cases, they didn't. In most cases, neither their insurance nor the money we are giving them is making them whole. There is no coverage for contents. This is not for contents. Some people might have $100,000 of contents in their home. Some people might have $200,000 of contents. Some people might have only $25,000 of contents. We are not even covering contents.

We are not covering the expedited or accelerated cost of labor and materials. So people are already with no coverage for contents. Unless they had insurance, they have lost that. We are not covering the 30- percent increase in labor costs or the 30-percent increase in cost of supplies. That is not calculated.

This loan is very important for people. It is saving many of them from bankruptcy. If they manage to get their loan, we most certainly do not want them to have to pay their loan back in full when they get their Road Home grant. This is for Louisiana and for Mississippi. If you add up 81,000 people in Louisiana and 31,000, this is over 100,000 families--110,000 families. That is probably affecting more than a quarter of a million people. That is a lot of people.

When this bill passes, which it will--it may not pass today, but I wish it would. I wish no one would object to it. But when this bill passes, 250,000 people are actually going to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and they will be able to say: This is hard. I don't know if I can rebuild. I don't know if I want to rebuild. But at least I have a fighting chance to make that decision. If this bill does not pass, these 200,000-plus people who live in my State and Mississippi--I predict many of them will have to file bankruptcy.

I have said this before and I am going to say it again. The people I represent who lived behind these levees were not sunbathing when these levees broke. They were loading tankers on the river. They were working at the docks. They were drilling and exploring for oil and gas in the gulf. They were going to work at hospitals and nursing homes and teaching and running our libraries. This is not a resort community. These levees were not protecting a beach. These levees were protecting a port, and the levees failed.

In working-class neighborhoods, Black and White, in rich and poor neighborhoods, people's homes were destroyed, homes that had never had an inch of water. Let me repeat that. People's homes were destroyed, homes that had never had an inch of water. They were not in a flood plain.

When you lose everything you have--and for most Americans, their largest

asset is their home--it is our obligation to think about ways we can strengthen the insurance system; strengthen our levees so they do not break again and while people are struggling give them a hand.

Again, I am not asking for loan forgiveness. They have to pay back every penny. But let's give them a fighting chance to pay it back, over 10 years or 15 years. Let's not require them to take one grant program we have given them to build their home and the same day take it away because they have to fully pay their small business loan.

I understand Senator Reid is going to call up this bill and try to get it passed. I surely hope nobody objects to it. It is a Landrieu- Lott bill, with Senator Vitter as well. Senator Reid is going to call it up in a few minutes, and I hope nobody objects to it. But if they do object, I can promise you I am going to spend every day on the floor until this bill is passed, sometime before we go home--not this week but before we go home for the next break.

I do not think this is unreasonable. We are going to ask for everybody's support. Senator Lott will be happy to explain, when he has an opportunity, about the 31,000 families in Mississippi. But I am going to leave this here, and Senator Reid is going to come down and ask it be passed. I hope we can get it done today. If not, we will ask for it tomorrow. If not, we will continue to ask for it until we get it.

We are asking for fairness, not charity, and for justice for the people in the gulf coast.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam. Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 42: Passage of H. Res. 475. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

January 22, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 43: Table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair for H. Res. 476. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 44: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. No. 52. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 45: Motion to suspend the rules and Agreed to H.R. 390. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 46: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 29. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

February 8, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 87: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, and amendment to include language which encourages the Assistant Administrator to utilize Land Grant Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions and other minority serving institutions among other resources to undertake research for programs covered by the bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 88: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, an amendment to add a new paragraph to section 3, Biofuel Infrastructure and Additives Research and Development, to include issues with respect to where in the fuel supply chain additives optimally should be added to fuels. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 89: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, an amendment to add a new paragraph to section 3 which includes issues with respect to certification by a nationally recognized testing laboratory of components for fuel dispensing devices that specifically reference compatibility with alcohol blended and biofuels that contain greater than 15 percent alcohol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 90: Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 547, an amendment to add a new section 7 entitled Additional Funding. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 91:

the Motion to Recommit with Instructions of H.R. 547. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 92: Passage of H.R. 547. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

February 28, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 111: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Con. Res. 52. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

March 12, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 136: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended on H.R. 85. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 137: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 136. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 138: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 89. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 187: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as amended on H.R. 802. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 188: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended on H.R. 137. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 189: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended on H.R. 580. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

May 14, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 342: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass on H.R. 1124. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 343: Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 223. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 344: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree (H. Res. 385). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

May 16, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 358: Call in Committee Quorum. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 359: Motion that the Committee Rise (H.R. 1585). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

June 11, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 448: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass on H.R. 2356. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 449: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on S. 676. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 450: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 418. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

July 23, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 687: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 404, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 688: Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 553. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 689: Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 519. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 690: On ordering the previous question on H. Res. 558. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

August 1, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 781: Motion to adjourn. Had I been present. I would have voted ``no.''

september 4, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 847: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 694, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 848: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3020, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 849: Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2669. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

september 17, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 867: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3246, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 868: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1657, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 869: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3527. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

october 1, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 924: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 185. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 925: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 926: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3325. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

october 15, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 961: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 738. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 962: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2089. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 963: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 20, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

October 17, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 980: Passage of H.R. 2095. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

october 29, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1010: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3224, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1011: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 573, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1012: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 747. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

November 5, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1034: Closing Portions of the Conference on H.R. 3222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1035: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 513, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1036: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 744. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

november 7, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1058: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Con. Res. 236, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

november 13, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1082: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3315. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1083: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1593, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1084: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3403, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1085: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3461, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

november 14, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1095: Motion to Adjourn. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

december 6, 2007

Madam Speaker, due to events in my district, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 1141: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2085. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I, along with Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Bartlett, have been trying to federally criminalize the brutal, inhumane practice of animal fighting for the past several Congresses.

A few years ago, Congress enacted legislation to tighten Federal laws with regard to animal fighting; however, this law created some loopholes that allowed the barbaric practices of animal fighting to thrive nationwide, in spite of bans in virtually every State. We left in place weak penalties that have proven ineffective. Misdemeanor penalties simply don't provide a meaningful deterrent. We've heard from U.S. Attorneys that they are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases with just a misdemeanor penalty. Those involved in animal fighting ventures consider misdemeanor penalties a ``slap on the wrist'' or merely a ``cost of doing business.''

In recent years, we've seen a marked rise in the frequency of animal fighting busts in communities across the country. Local police and sheriffs are increasingly concerned about animal fighting, not only because of the animal cruelty involved, but also because of the other crimes that often go hand-in-hand, including illegal gambling, drug trafficking, and acts of human violence. In the last 6 months, every reported bust of an animal fight also led to additional arrests for at least one of these criminal activities.

Furthermore, there is an inherent danger for the children of animal fighters to be close to these animals. Children are often brought to these gruesome spectacles. Some dog fighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs; some allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.

There is the additional concern that cockfighters spread diseases that jeopardize poultry flocks and even public health. We in California experienced this first-hand, when cockfighters spread exotic Newcastle disease, which was so devastating to many of our poultry producers in 2002 and 2003. That outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate, and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions more in lost export markets.

Cockfighting has been identified as the major contributor of the spread of avian flu throughout Thailand and other parts of Asia, where the strain originated. At least nine people who contracted avian flu and died from it reportedly contracted it from fighting birds. Among those who are reported to have died from avian influenza as a result of exposure through cockfighting, include 4-year-old, 6-year-old, and 18- year-old boys in Thailand and a 6-year-old girl in Vietnam. Fortunately, bird flu has not yet jumped the species barrier in this country, but we ought to do all we can to minimize the risk.

Opponents of H.R. 137 have said this bill should be blocked because it will drive them underground, increasing the public health risks. That's a ludicrous argument. They're already underground (it's illegal in 49 States and various localities in the remaining State, Louisiana). They're coaching each other, as documented in chat rooms and other communications that have been intercepted, to hide their birds to avoid detection in the event of an outbreak. We're not talking about stellar citizens who are planning to contact health officials to ``do their part'' in stemming a pandemic. We'll be much better off cracking down on illegal cockfighting than allowing this high-risk industry to continue thriving and hoping they'll work with the government cooperatively to stem the threat of disease.

We need to help State and local law enforcement officials who have requested this strengthening of Federal laws to rid animal fighting from communities that do not want it. This legislation makes violations of federal animal fighting law a felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison, makes it a felony to transport an animal across State or international borders for the purpose of animal fighting, and prohibits the interstate and foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting.

This bill simply promotes meaningful enforcement of current Federal law that bars interstate and foreign movement of animals for fighting purposes, including both dog fighting and cockfighting, by upgrading current misdemeanor penalties to a felony level. The bill is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects States' rights in the 2 States where cockfighting is allowed, yet further protects States' rights in the other 48 States where weak Federal law compromises the ability to keep animal fighting outside their borders.

I also wanted to clarify for the Record that subsection (c) of section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, which is about interstate instrumentalities and commercial speech, prohibits the websites and the magazines where fighting animals are advertised for sale. These publications are commercial speech, and also clearly promote animal fighting. They advertise fighting animals and weapons for sale in interstate commerce. For example, over the last 12 months, there have been over 1,600 pages worth of advertisements for illegal interstate commercial transactions in the two main cockfighting magazines.

Subsection (d) is meant to limit subsection (c) with respect to the magazines and other commercial speech promoting cockfights in States where that is legal. It acts as a limitation upon subsection (c), but, as under current law, only if the effect of that promotion is limited to cockfights in the one State where cockfighting is still legal. So as a practical matter, (d) does not limit enforcement of (c) against the cockfighting magazines and website advertisements, because these materials promote animal fights in every State--they are sent to or read by buyers in many States, who buy the fighting animals and implements and then use them in animal fights in States where cockfighting is illegal.

Finally, I also want to say that these provisions in current law, which are mirrored in H.R. 137, pose no problem in terms of the First Amendment. Animal fighting magazines and websites aren't protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has been clear on this score-- there is no First Amendment protection for commercial speech where the underlying commercial transaction is lawfully prohibited, as is the case here. Subsection (c) is clearly constitutional. It is narrowly tailored with this in mind. First Amendment consideration is built right into the language. It only prohibits ``commercial speech''--like the cockfighting magazines with all of their advertisements for contraband. These animal fighting magazines are not political speech, they are basically just catalogs, with hundreds of advertisements per issue for illegal transactions. The sellers are just soliciting the buyers to commit criminal acts. They can't cloak it in the First Amendment just by throwing a little bit of non-commercial speech in there either, and the Supreme Court has been clear on that as well.

This is the perfect example of a bipartisan bill. The bill I cosponsored in the last Congress, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act of 2006, had 324 cosponsors and was passed through the Senate by unanimous consent. Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Bartlett, and I rounded up 300 Democrat and Republican co-sponsors in just a few weeks.

I want to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Bartlett for their work on this legislation. We have all been working on this legislation for quite some time. I also want to commend Mr. Conyers, Mr. Smith, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Forbes for recognizing the importance of this issue and thank them for moving H.R. 137 through the Judiciary Committee so quickly. I also want to thank Mr. Peterson of the Agriculture Committee for his assistance on this matter. Finally, I want to thank my 300+ colleagues who cosponsored H.R. 137. Without your help, we would not have been able to show the amount of support this Congress has for ending this deplorable practice and all of the destructive behavior associated with it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 137) to amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 137 is a bipartisan effort by the Judiciary Committee, led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) as the chief sponsor and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) as the lead Democratic sponsor. Both have worked long and hard on this issue. I would also like to express my appreciation to Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Forbes for their leadership and support in moving this matter forward, and also the former chairman of the committee, Mr. Coble, who is with us today.

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 addresses the growing problem of staged animal fighting in this country. It increases the penalties under the current Federal law for transporting animals in interstate commerce for the purpose of fighting and for interstate and foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting.

Specifically, H.R. 137 makes violations of the law a felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Currently, these offenses are limited to misdemeanor treatment with the possibility of a fine and up to 1 year of imprisonment. Most States make all staged animal fighting illegal. Just one State currently allows cockfighting to occur legally.

The transport of game birds for the purpose of animal fighting and the implements of cockfighting are already prohibited by Federal law, though the current law only allows, as I have indicated, the misdemeanor treatment. In 1976 Congress amended title 7, U.S. Code, section 2156, the Animal Welfare Act, to make it illegal to knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive a dog or other animal in interstate or foreign commerce for the purposes of participation in an animal fighting venture or knowingly sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in a fighting venture if any animal in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act contained a loophole, however, that allowed shipments of birds across State lines for fighting purposes if the destination State allowed cockfighting.

While Congress did amend section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act to close this

loophole in 2002, the penalty section and other provisions of the act have not been updated since their original enactment in 1976. This bill is designed to address those shortfalls to more effectively cover modern problems associated with animal fighting ventures.

As I have already mentioned, the legislation increases current penalties to provide a meaningful deterrent. One of the primary reasons for enacting the increased penalties under title 18 is the reluctance of U.S. Attorneys to pursue animal fighting cases under the current misdemeanor provisions because they view the penalties as ineffective against an animal fighting industry, which has continued unabated nationwide.

H.R. 137 further makes it a felony to transport cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These implements take the form of razor-sharp knives, known as slashers; or gaffs, instruments shaped in the form of curved ice picks that are attached to birds' legs for fighting. Proponents of these implements within the game fowl community apparently contend that they inflict cleaner wounds upon the birds which are then quicker and easier to heal.

Since penalties against animal fighting were codified in 1976, Federal authorities have pursued less than half a dozen animal fighting cases, despite the fact that the USDA has received numerous tips from informants and requests to assist with State and local prosecutions.

In addition, despite the fact that all 50 States have banned dog fighting and all but one State has banned cockfighting, the animal fighting industry continues to thrive within the United States. Numerous nationally circulated animal fighting magazines advertise fighting animals, and paid lobbyists continue to advocate for animal fighters' interests. Thankfully, H.R. 137 will seek to bring an end to these practices.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill affects matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and the Judiciary Committee. Both committees have worked closely together to ensure that all matters are dealt with appropriately. We appreciate their assistance in bringing this bill expeditiously to the floor, and I will insert into the Congressional Record at this point an exchange of letters between Chairman Peterson of the Agriculture Committee and Chairman Conyers of Judiciary.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.

Hon. Collin C. Peterson,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter

regarding the Agriculture Committee's jurisdictional interest

in H.R. 137, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement

Act of 2007,'' which the Committee on the Judiciary reported

by voice vote. As ordered reported, the bill establishes

criminal penalties for violations of Federal prohibitions on

animal fighting.

I appreciate your willingness to discharge the bill from

further consideration by your Committee, in order to expedite

its floor consideration. I understand and agree that this is

without prejudice to your Committee's jurisdictional

interests in this or similar legislation in the future. In

the event a House-Senate conference on this or similar

legislation is convened, I would support your request for an

appropriate number of conferees.

I will include a copy of your letter and this response as

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the

legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your

cooperation as we work towards enactment of H.R. 137.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the lead Democratic sponsor of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is bipartisan legislation. We have listened to all of the people who have worked long and hard on this legislation. I hope it will be the pleasure of the House to pass the bill.

Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Scott's courtesy in permitting me to speak and the leadership in taking what is seemingly a simple and innocuous bill and bringing it to the floor of the House. I appreciate working with my friend, Elton Gallegly. This has been a long haul, lots of ups and downs, but today we reach an important milestone.

This is my fifth year of working on this issue. We were exposed to it during the last farm bill. We found that this got caught up in back- room machinations that really just defy description.

You have already heard about the despicable cruelty. You have heard about the association with illegal activity, gambling, violence, drugs and firearms trade. Louisiana is now poised to become the last State to make it illegal, making it illegal in every State in the Union.

Why then is this even an issue? Well, it is an underground and pervasive activity. It is in fact active across the country.

I just heard from one of our floor staff as we walked in today that he saw accounts from small town newspapers in Alabama the last 2 weeks in articles there. In Portland, Oregon, in recent months we have had officers break into a meth and coke den where there were 43 live chickens and all the equipment, as well as illegal weapons and large amounts of cash. In another high-profile case in my community, a professional basketball player was involved with illegal fighting of his pit bull.

This is something that has been an area, frankly, where Congress has shamefully been complicit. We have ignored the fact that inadequate penalties, as has been said by the chairman of the committee, by my friend from California, which have just been the ``cost of doing business,'' We have looked the other way.

This is an important vote today. I am confident with over 300 co- sponsors it will pass, and it will pass overwhelmingly. But the battle is not done. Never underestimate the power of the apologists, the allies and the enablers of this vicious and cruel, I won't even call it a ``sport,'' it is a vicious practice.

I am hopeful that we will move forward with not just voting today, but make sure that it passes the other body, and it is not subjected, as it has been time and time again over the last 5 years, to some other devious action.

Do not sell short the people who are apologists for this sport. Join with us not just with your vote but to make sure that we get this legislation enacted and then enforced around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act, which would raise the penalty for violators of the federal animal welfare law, from a class 1 misdemeanor to a felony. In an industry where thousands of dollars change hands with each fight, misdemeanor fines and charges are simply considered ``the costs of doing business''. This bill would close this loophole and keep criminals from traveling to states with weaker penalties to conduct their business.

Animal fights are not only despicable for their cruelty to animals, but they are commonly associated with illegal gambling, drug traffic, firearms trades, and numerous other illicit activities. Recently in Oregon, officers found meth, cocaine, $10,000 in cash, along with 43 live chickens, cockfighting equipment including metal spurs and gaffs in a Portland man's home. Drugs are often the impetus for the discovery of gamecocks and illegal weapons. In another high profile Oregon case, a former Portland Trailblazer pled guilty to animal abuse for fighting his pit bull. Officials found her bloody, scarred, and covered in tar which is used by fighters as a cheap antiseptic to fresh wounds.

But animal fighting doesn't just pose a threat to the people and animals who engage in them, it has enormous costs to the United States health and economy. Cockfighting has been implicated in the introduction and spread of exotic Newcastle disease in California in 2002-2003, which cost the U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate. The disease spread further to large scale egg farms in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas; costing the U.S. poultry industry many millions of dollars in lost export markets. Cockfighting has also been implicated in the deaths of at least 9 people in Asia who contracted avian flu after exposure to fighting birds. If avian flu were to reach the shores of America, the economic and human consequences would be staggering.

This bill has widespread support across the country, including 303 cosponsors in the House and 35 cosponsors in the Senate. HR 137 is endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, the National Chicken Council which represents 95 percent of the Nation's poultry producers, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Sheriff's Association, and more than 400 local law enforcement agencies. Currently there is only one bastion left for cock fighters; the State of Louisiana. Although gamers have attempted to use tribal lands as exemptions from state and federal laws, a federal jury recently convicted four men for their participation in a cockfight, and 70 others entered guilty pleas. It is my understanding that the increase in penalties contained within this bill would be equally applicable to animal fights held on tribal lands or Indian Reservations.

It is far past time that Congress give our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to end this barbaric and consequential practice.