Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will amend the United States Constitution to force Congress to rein in spending by balancing the federal budget.

It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more than they have--yet far too frequently, this fundamental principle has been lost on a Congress that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line.

Our federal government must be lean, efficient and responsible with the dollars that our nation's citizens worked so hard to earn. We must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to us. Families all across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford, corporate officers are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders when using company resources, and government officials should be held to similar standards when spending the hard-earned dollars of our nation's citizens.

Congress took a dramatic step forward last year when it passed the Deficit Reduction Act. This new law found savings of approximately $40 billion over the next five years by eliminating wasteful spending and programs. This legislation was an important first step, but it was just that--a first step. Furthermore, the legislation was passed by the Senate by a margin of just one vote and was passed by the House by a margin of two votes, which shows exactly how difficult the task of balancing the budget is--and how important it is to force Congress to do so.

In the 109th Congress, we were fortunate to have a majority in the House and Senate that had an appetite for reining in spending but we stil have to make considerable strides to achieve a balanced budget. Only time will tell whether future Congresses will have this appetite as well. However, one thing is certain--if we pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires a balanced budget, Congress will have to act accordingly regardless of which party is in control in Washington, D.C. This is exactly why I am introducing this legislation today.

My legislation would amend the Constitution to require that total spending for any fiscal year not exceed total receipts and require the president to propose budgets to Congress that are balanced each year. It would also provide an exception in times of military conflicts that pose imminent and serious military threats to national security.

Furthermore, the legislation would make it harder to increase taxes by requiring that legislation to increase revenue must be passed by a true majority of each chamber and not just a majority of those present and voting. Finally, the bill requires a 3/5 majority vote for any increases in the debt limit.

This concept is not new. Forty-nine out of fifty States have a balanced budget requirement.

It has become clear that it is extremely difficult for Congress to agree on a budget that is fiscally responsible. By amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, we can force Congress to control spending, paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, rather than allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and in doing so leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own.

Yesterday, President Bush also highlighted the importance of a balanced federal budget

by announcing his plan to present Congress with a budget proposal that will balance the budget by 2012. I applaud the President for his announcement and look forward to working with him to bring fiscal responsibility back to the federal government.

Our nation faces many difficult decisions in the coming years, and Congress will face great pressure to spend beyond its means rather than to make difficult decisions about spending priorities. Unless Congress is forced to make the decisions necessary to create a balanced budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this responsibility. The Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment is a common sense approach to ensure that Congress is bound by the same fiscal principles that America's families face each day.

I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4093. This bill will modify the expiration date of a provision of the farm bill dealing with farm credit so that it expires concurrent with the rest of the farm bill. Currently, a provision of the farm bill dealing with guaranteed loans for farmers and ranchers expires on December 31 of this year. The rest of the farm bill, however, does not begin to expire until September 30, 2007. By passing S. 4093, we are ensuring that this credit program has the opportunity to be fully debated during the development of the next farm bill. Should this provision expire in the next few days, it could create hardship on the part of those farmers, ranchers and lenders to whom it would apply. I ask my colleagues to support S. 4093 so that this credit program, which is important for America's young and beginning farmers, has the opportunity to be debated and reevaluated during development of the next farm bill without causing undue hardship with limited notice to the farmers and ranchers that use this important program.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a real honor to rise in tribute to a great American statesman, Henry Hyde.

Madam Speaker, Henry Hyde is somebody that I knew of by reputation before I arrived here at Congress in 1993. It has been one of the true privileges of my service here to get to know and work with this outstanding man. He is known throughout the world in diplomatic circles as a great ambassador for the United States, as chairman of the International Relations Committee.

I have had the opportunity to see him in action with Presidents and Prime Ministers, to see the kind of respect that he commands from world leaders because of his leadership of that committee and because of his great concern for the promotion of American interests around the world.

Those interests are very pure, interests of promoting democracy and opportunity, freedom and peace, for people in every corner of the globe. I have not had the privilege of serving on the International Relations Committee, but I have had the opportunity to serve for 14 years on the Judiciary Committee with Henry Hyde. Not only is he a great statesman on the international stage, but he is clearly also a great statesman in promoting and protecting the Constitution of the United States, the people's Constitution, as he views it, and as he has protected it for many, many years in his service here in the Congress.

I have, as one of my prize possessions, a gavel that he used during the impeachment proceedings with regard to former President Clinton. The impeachment proceedings are not a happy or pleasant circumstance, and I don't prize the gavel because of the circumstances, but I prize it because it was used by Henry Hyde with courage, with integrity and with forthrightness and handling, in a very diplomatic and very statesmanlike way, what was clearly the most challenging thing that he dealt with in his entire career.

He did it with great dignity. He did it correctly, he did it with great sacrifice as well, because he faced bitter, unfair, false attacks from many quarters for his facing up to that challenge, and I was proud to serve with him on that committee in that regard.

He is also known as a champion for life in America and around the world, and I think that may perhaps be his greatest legacy of all. Because to Henry Hyde, life is not just about one issue, abortion or any other issue, it is about human dignity and about preserving and protecting and giving opportunity to each and every one of us. As a young and new Member of Congress, he took me and guided me through many challenges when we became the majority party.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, a new member of the committee, he gave me opportunities to lead the management of legislation and amendments here on the floor of the House, and I will be forever indebted to Henry Hyde for making my career in the Congress greater, and this institution a greater institution because of his dedication and service. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 96) recognizing the contributions of the Christmas tree industry to the United States economy and urging the Secretary of Agriculture to establish programs to raise awareness of the importance of the Christmas tree industry, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for introducing this resolution. The Christmas tree industry is an important part of the American agricultural industry and is an important part of the rural and forested landscape of Virginia and many other States. One of the leading States in the industry is my own.

Christmas tree growers, like many other family farmers and forest landowners, are stewards of the land. They are bound together by a love of the land and a desire to produce renewable products that enhance people's lives while protecting the environment.

For many family forest landowners, Christmas tree growing provides a source of annual income. While this income is rarely enough to make a living on, it allows family growers to make long-term investments for the management of their woodlands. For many small growers, this income is critical to allowing them to keep their forests green and growing, rather than subdividing or switching to another land use.

According to the Virginia Christmas Tree Growers Association, there are thousands of growers in the Commonwealth who produce more than 1 million trees annually, ranging from commercial operations to choose- and-cut family farms. These trees annually account for nearly $50 million in revenue.

Like other segments of the forest products industry, Christmas tree growers are engaged in a renewable, sustainable activity. They plant millions of new trees every year, 73 million trees that cover over a half million acres to be precise. That is a lot of land protected from development and a lot of new trees helping to clean the air, protect watersheds and improve the environment.

Just as growing Christmas trees helps renew the environment, the annual tradition of bringing home a tree and decorating it helps renew the faith of millions of families as they gather to celebrate Christmas. In the Christmas season, the Christmas tree is a symbol of joy and goodwill, and we are grateful to all who work to provide this American tradition.

I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the committee, for his support in our efforts to move this legislation forward.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his kind words, and I look forward to working with him in a new capacity in the new Congress. He certainly has my commitment that we will continue to work together for the interests of America's farmers and ranchers and agribusinesses in the bipartisan fashion that has been the history of the Agriculture Committee

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the author of the legislation, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 96, the joint resolution just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4846, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Authorization Act, which will authorize grants from the National Archives for the establishment of a Presidential library to provide educational and interpretive service to honor the life of Woodrow Wilson.

As a statesman, scholar and President, Woodrow Wilson faced economic crisis, democratic decay, and a world war. Presidential historians agree that World War I and President Wilson's leadership radically altered the role of diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy, a policy that established a new path for America's role in promoting democracies throughout the world. So, too, did Wilson's high-minded ideals craft a legacy that shaped the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch in times of war.

Mr. Speaker, as a professor and President of Princeton University, Wilson created a more selective and accountable system for higher education. By instituting curriculum reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of teachers and students and quickly made Princeton one of the most renowned universities in the world.

Due to Wilson's legacy at Princeton, I am pleased to have the support of the current Princeton President, Shirley Tilghman, as we establish this library.

H.R. 4846 gives the National Archives the authority to make pass- through grants for the establishment of a Presidential library in Staunton, Virginia, Woodrow Wilson's birthplace, and does not create a new program.

In addition, to ensure that a public-private partnership exits, this legislation mandates that no grant shall be available for the establishment of this library until a private entity has raised at least twice the amount to be allocated by the archives.

Quite frankly, more Federal public-private programs should operate in this manner.

Finally, and to ensure that the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library is not part of the Presidential library's system, this legislation states that the Federal Government shall have no role or responsibility for the ongoing operation of the library.

I am also pleased to have the support of several other Presidential sites throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, known as the Birthplace of Presidents, including Monticello, Poplar Forest, Montpelier, Ash- Lawn, and Mount Vernon.

Mr. Speaker, in order to increase the awareness and understanding of the life and principles and accomplishments of the 28th President of the United States, I ask that you join me in voting for this legislation in the 150th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson's birth year.

I would also like to thank the Woodrow Wilson Library Foundation for their help in this cause, including Eric Vettel, Don Wilson, honorary officers, board members, and trustees. I want to thank House leadership for scheduling this bill today, cosponsors, which includes the entire Virginia delegation and the staff of the Government Reform Committee and the Office of Legislative Counsel for their assistance in crafting this bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5313) to reserve a small percentage of the amounts made available to the Secretary of Agriculture for the farmland protection program to fund challenge grants to encourage the purchase of conservation easements and other interests in land to be held by a State agency, county, or other eligible entity, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Speaker, urban sprawl continues to threaten the Nation's farmland. Social and economic changes over the past three decades have influenced the rate at which land is converted to nonagricultural uses. Population growth, demographic changes, preferences for larger lots, expansion of transportation systems, and economic prosperity have contributed to increases in agricultural land conversion rates.

The amount of farmland lost to development is not the only significant concern. Another cause for concern is the quality and pattern of farmland being converted. In most States, prime farmland is being converted at two to four times the rate of other, less-productive agricultural land.

There continues to be an important national interest in the protection of farmland. Land use devoted to agriculture provides an important contribution to meeting the Nation's food and fiber needs, environmental quality, protection of the Nation's historical and archeological resources and scenic beauty.

The farmland protection program is administered by NRCS and provides funds to State, tribal, and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to help them purchase conservation easements from willing sellers to limit conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

The farmland protection program has received funding applications for 300 percent more dollars than the program was appropriated. The result in fiscal year 2005 was $262 million in unfunded projects. There simply weren't enough Federal dollars to match the number of applications to preserve farmland.

H.R. 5313, the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Challenge Grant Act, was introduced to aid in reducing the number of unfunded projects. Currently, the farmland protection program provides up to a 50 percent Federal match on these easement projects. By lowering the Federal match on a small portion of farmland protection program funding, we believe that less Federal funds can be used to protect more land.

The bill before us today, H.R. 5313, amends the Farm Security Act of 1985 to set aside 15 percent of farmland protection funds for cost- share grants, 25 percent maximum Federal share, to support eligible State agencies, county, and one or more eligible entities, local government or private entities, to purchase conservation easements.

This bill allows Federal dollars to go further by lowering the Federal match fund to a maximum of 25 percent and allowing other entities to make up the other 75 percent. States where the State, county, and local grassroots effort is strong can make better use of increasingly limited dollars. For example, Pennsylvania, which has great grassroots efforts to protect farmland, had the most unfunded easement applications, 65 for fiscal year 2005, which accounted for 6,200 acres not being able to be put into this program. By being able to use these reserved funds, more acres, with help from more groups, can be protected.

There is no new spending authorized in this bill. It simply creates a set-aside out of existing Federal farmland protection dollars. Any funds not used will go back into the general disbursement of farmland protection funds.

Madam Speaker, obviously, it is in this country's best interests to protect some of its great farmland. This program is immensely popular in many States, proven by the numbers of applications for the program each year. States like Connecticut, with $14 million in projects that could not be funded; Maryland had $17 million; Michigan, $22 million; New Hampshire, $15 million; Ohio, $12 million; and Pennsylvania, $20 million. This bill gives States that have tremendous grassroots organizations the ability to protect more farmland with less Federal money.

I would like to thank the ranking member of the committee, Congressman Peterson, for working with us on this matter, as well as Congressman Gerlach, who introduced the measure, and Congressman Tim Holden, a member of the committee, from Pennsylvania, who has legislation addressing this issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5103) to provide for the conveyance of the former Konnarock Lutheran Girls School in Smyth County, Virginia, which is currently owned by the United States and administered by the Forest Service, to facilitate the restoration and reuse of the property, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5103, a bill to provide for the conveyance of the former Konnarock Lutheran Girls School in Smyth County, Virginia. The Konnarock property is located in Representative Rick Boucher's congressional district, just south of my district in the southwestern part of Virginia. The land and buildings were acquired by the Forest Service in 1967. The facility, at that time, was not in use. It was last used as a school in 1959.

The Forest Service used the buildings to house fire crews and summer trail crews, as well as the job corps operations. By the early 1980s, continued deterioration rendered the facility unusable. There has been considerable continued deterioration since that time. The facility is now in severe disrepair.

Prior to Forest Service acquisition, the facility was owned by the local Lutheran Church. This legislation would convey the land to the Evangelical Lutheran Coalition for the mission in Appalachia, which plans to restore/preserve the historic structures; develop a retreat center; partner with area colleges to use the property as an environmental learning center; and develop, archive, and exhibit the history of the school and the community.

This bill was passed by the House Committee on Agriculture favorably last week with the recommendation

that it does pass. Today's bill takes the bare minimum necessary to convey this property to an owner who will have an opportunity to invest in the buildings and restore them to their historical significance.

Prior to the committee's consideration of the bill, we were advised by the Congressional Budget Office that the small area conveyed and the deterioration of the buildings ensures that the bill will not have a significant impact on spending.

I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for introducing this good measure and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member, for helping us get it to the floor. I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4559) to provide for the conveyance of National Forest System land to the towns of Laona and Wabeno, Wisconsin, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain isolated parcels of National Forest System land in Florence and Langlade Counties, Wisconsin, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4559. This bill simply provides the Forest Service with the required legislative authority to sell two tracts in Wisconsin to neighboring towns for a set price which the Forest Service and the towns agree represents fair market value.

The intent of the land sale is to spur economic development by providing the towns room to grow and allow the Forest Service to acquire more sensitive lands that have higher natural resource value. The proceeds of these sales will be used by the Forest Service to acquire other higher priority lands in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for introducing this legislation, and I thank Mr. Peterson for working with us on the committee to move this legislation forward. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this important resolution.

Five years ago, America's collective national memory was seared with devastating images of crumbling skyscrapers, a smoldering Pennsylvania field, and the very symbol of our military might ablaze. The terrorists who perpetrated these acts sought to instill fear in the hearts of Americans, perceiving us as weak, unwilling or unable to fight back, thinking us content to shrink from the international stage. In this, they misjudged.

Hours after the attacks, homemade banners fluttered over railings of highway overpasses. Old Glory was flown proudly from porches and storefronts alike. Out of the ashes, Americans united, and found strength.

Since that deadly strike, America has been diligently working to eliminate the scourge of terrorism while making sure that the individual liberties of Americans are protected.

We established the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate our national antiterrorism efforts and increase information sharing among our intelligence agencies. We also created a specific committee in the House of Representatives to address homeland security issues and conduct oversight of that agency. We also enacted the PATRIOT Act, which contains important tools to fight terrorism, including the application of traditional wiretap and other electronic surveillance authority to new technologies such as the Internet, as well as the authority for Federal law enforcement officials to share foreign intelligence information with other government agencies to protect national defense. In addition, we enhanced the penalties for money laundering and for financing terrorists and increased the maximum criminal penalties for terrorist offenses.

While these tools are extremely important in the war on terror and have undoubtedly helped ensure that no further attacks have occurred on U.S. soil to date, the Congress has aggressively

conducted oversight of this new law to ensure that civil liberties are not trampled.

From October 2001 through the end of 2005, Congress engaged in over 50 items of terrorism-related oversight, including letters to the Justice Department, oversight hearings and briefings. During the consideration of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization last year, the Judiciary Committee conducted 13 oversight hearings and received testimony from 36 witnesses, including extensive testimony from Attorney General Gonzales.

We must never forget the devastation of September 11 and we must remain vigilant in our quest to eliminate those forces that use terror to further their political and ideological goals.

I urge my colleagues to join in support of this resolution and to join together in remaining vigilant and protecting freedom.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 has not received the support of any House committee and was, in fact, ordered to be reported unfavorably to the floor with the recommendation that it not pass by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 37-3 of the Agriculture Committee. So, naturally, the Members of that committee are very sympathetic with those who do not want to hear this legislation today.

The committee rejected this legislation because it has real concerns that eliminating the option of humane euthanasia at horse-processing facilities will do undeniable harm to the welfare of the 90,000 unwanted horses per year that normally go this route. This rule makes in order several amendments that seek to correct some of the problems created by this bill.

Since H.R. 503 leaves so many questions unanswered, the amendments are the only means to provide solutions to the problems. What happens to those 90,000 horses? H.R. 503 provides no answer to that question. Will they be guaranteed a safe, healthy future by the passage of H.R. 503? Sadly, the answer is, no.

H.R. 503 provides no provisions for the welfare of these unwanted horses. Proponents suggest that these 90,000 horses will not all necessarily be absorbed by the rescue facilities but will instead be sold to new owners or kept longer by their current owners. Many of the horses received by these processing plants are traditionally unserviceable, vivacious or behaviorally unacceptable in today's equine community.

Holding on to a dangerous horse presents a potentially dangerous situation for the owner and his or her family. And selling the dangerous horse to an unwitting buyer is irresponsible. Obviously, the idea of sending a horse to a processing facility is not something any of us would like to think about. But for certain horses, these facilities, which are federally regulated with on-site U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarians and humane euthanasia and processing conditions that are acceptable to the both the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners provide a humane alternative to additional suffering or possibly dangerous situations.

In order to ensure the welfare of these animals while they are alive, it is imperative that all humane disposal options be available. A responsible horse owner has the right to choose, and although we may not agree, we need to respect that right.

H.R. 503 is a deceptive piece of legislation. Much of the misinformation that surrounds this bill has led many to believe it will accomplish things that it is not capable of achieving. Make no mistake about it: H.R. 503 will not prevent horses from dying. Proponents note that an alternative to sending the horses to processing facilities is to put the horse down on the farm. Apparently, the alternative to death is, well, death.

The euthanasia practices employed at the three U.S. processing facilities meet the humane euthanasia guidelines of the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for humane euthanasia.

The proponents of H.R. 503 are not arguing to keep horses alive or maintain a standard of care to ensure the horse's welfare; they are arguing about what happens to the meat once the animal has been euthanized. Furthermore, the humane treatment of these horses is regulated from the moment the decision is made to send the horse to the processing facility.

The Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act regulates the transportation of the horses to the facility, preventing the transport or euthanasia of injured horses. This bill raises many questions about the welfare of horses but provides no solutions. If you care about animal warfare, vote against H.R. 503. If you care about horses, vote against this bill.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2\1/ 4\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the chairman of the Livestock Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that that is 1 percent of the horses per year, 90,000 or 1 percent of the 9 million per year. The average life expectancy of a horse is over 25 years. So about 25 percent of the horses go through this process in this country, and we will have a huge problem if we don't resolve that, if we pass this bill.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Just to respond to the gentleman from Kentucky, who asks a very good question about the responsibility of horse owners and horse breeders, I guess my question to the gentleman is, why doesn't his bill contain any provisions to prevent the creation of unwanted horses? That is one of the principal objections that these respected

national organizations have to this legislation, is that he does not address that in his bill.

Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

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

Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that dealt with this issue, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this is an emotionally charged issue. But passion when left unchecked can have negative consequences. That

is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today.

I have asked my colleagues to consider the consequences of this legislation, as did I and the 36 bipartisan members of the House Committee on Agriculture. And the gentleman wonders why they have never dealt with it; the committee voted 37-3 to report this bill unfavorably with the recommendation that it not pass the House. And I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership on his side of the aisle and for yielding me some of his time.

Also, more than 200 reputable national and State organizations, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the horse doctors who polled their members, 80 percent were opposed to this legislation. Also opposed are the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Quarter Horse Association, the National Association of Counties, and every State horse council in the country that has taken a stand on this issue, including New York, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Virginia, North Carolina, have all opposed this legislation.

The consequences of this legislation are far-reaching and stand to jeopardize the welfare of America's horse population and will potentially place a significant financial burden on horse owners across the Nation.

Instead of solving problems, H.R. 503 creates problems. It provides no directive as to what will happen to the 90,000 unwanted horses annually processed in slaughter facilities, and it increases the probability of unwanted horses becoming victims of neglect, starvation and abandonment. That is not just my opinion; that is the opinion of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

H.R. 503 provides no funding for alternatives and no instructions for the regulation of rescue or shelter facilities to ensure the welfare of these unwanted and unusable horses. The influx of unwanted horses would flood the already inadequate, overburdened, unregulated rescue-and- adoption facilities. There are roughly 6,000 slots in America's horse shelters and rescue facilities, 6,000. The majority of these shelters are operated by individuals who are able to take one, maybe two, horses at a time. These shelters and rescue facilities cannot possibility accommodate many, many times, 20, 30 times that number of horses that would be created by this bill.

It limits horse owners' availability of choice of how to dispose of their animals and infringes on owners' private property rights.

Horse owners have a variety of options when seeking to get rid of an unusable or unwanted horse, including rescue or retirement facilities, private sale, donation, euthanasia and processing facilities. Depending on the individual needs of the owner and the horse, some options may be more feasible than others. By eliminating this option, we are dictating what horse owners can and cannot do with their own private property. We must respect the right of responsible owners to choose the option best suited for their unique circumstances.

It mandates costs on private citizens. If the bill were enacted as written and the processing of horses for human consumption was no longer a legal option for owners to dispose of unwanted horses, estimates place the additional number of unwanted horses at 272,000 within the first 6 years.

Today we take care of 20,000 wild horses in corrals out west that cost us $50 million a year. Imagine having 10, 15, 20 times as many horses to take care of who are in that same situation. The cost to private horse owners of maintaining these horses has been conservatively estimated to be between $3 and $4 billion. By eliminating the option of horse processing facilities, thereby limiting the option of owners to dispose of their property, Congress would be forcing a $3 to $4 billion burden on private citizens and maybe perhaps to State and local governments, one of the reasons why the National Association of Counties is concerned about protecting private property rights.

The bottom line, H.R. 503 does not solve problems; it creates problems. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

We have discussed many problems that the Sweeney-Whitfield bill will create with not a single solution in sight. While it is not possible to address all of those problems, we must address the fate of the horses affected by this bill.

I am joined by my ranking member, Mr. Peterson, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the gentleman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) in offering an amendment to address this concern.

The amendment would very simply say that until the Secretary of Agriculture can certify that sufficient sanctuary space is available to accommodate the unwanted horses created by this bill, the drastic step of a Federal mandate will be delayed.

Everyone debating this issue today is dedicated to the best care possible for horses. We profoundly disagree on how to achieve that laudable goal. The cosponsors of this amendment believe it would be a tragedy to take the dramatic step of closing off a humane method of disposal of animals that the owners can no longer care for only to see them abandoned or killed wholesale at greater cost to their owners.

If we are to take this drastic step, we should at least ensure that the horses for whom it is being done continue to live out their lives in humane circumstances.

Nothing in this amendment would prevent the operation of H.R. 503 as long as there was assurance that a humane living alternative to the current system exists. It is impossible for me to believe that the supporters of H.R. 503 intend to replace the death of horses that they decry with abandonment or wholesale death at the hands of their owners.

The proponents of this bill have assured us there will be no flood of unwanted horses with no place to go as a result of this bill. If this is true, and reputable organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners strongly dispute that, but if it is true, our amendment will be an easy procedural step to meet.

If, however, the Association of Equine Practitioners and major horse- owning groups who oppose H.R. 503 are correct that hundreds of thousands of unwanted horses with no place to go would be created in just a few years, this amendment can prevent a catastrophe for horses in this country.

I ask my colleagues to join us in passing this amendment that provides a solution for at least one of the problems created by this bill.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side and who has the right to close.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will respond to the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from New York, who called this a poison pill. This is no such thing whatsoever. They say there is no problem with unwanted horses. Then there will be no problem getting a certification that there is sufficient horse sanctuary facilities around the country to take care of them. I strongly dispute that.

I think the gentleman from New York and I, while we may disagree on numbers, can agree that 90,000 is 10 percent of 900,000, not 1 percent. But whatever that is, that is a substantial number of unwanted horses.

And, remember, the average life expectancy of a horse is 25 years. Many of these horses have many years of life expectancy left in them; so they are going to accumulate over a period of years. In fact, the American Veterinary Medical Association says over 6 years they will grow to 272,000 in number. That is far, far more than the capacity of all the horse sanctuaries around the country that exist today. And there is no sign of their growing rapidly to meet this need because they cannot even meet the current need to take care of the unwanted horses that exist in this country right now as we speak.

So I would urge my colleagues to support this very good amendment that will cure a very serious flaw in this legislation, and then we will have the opportunity to see who is correct about how many unwanted horses we are going to have in this country. Are the experts, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the horse doctors, the Horse Owners Associations around the country, who strongly support this amendment, correct, or are they correct?

I think this is a fair amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, the additional amendments that have been made in order under my name or my designee we do not intend to bring up.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa