Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have been on this committee since its inception 4 years ago. It is probably my most challenging duty here in Congress. It is one of my greatest honors, and I have to tell you, every year this appropriation measure is probably the steepest climb that we have because we know now that the threats we face, the challenges we face are enormous, and any arbitrary amount of money can't bring us to a place of perfection.

I want to salute the chairman for his great work. This is probably one of the best bills that you have been able to produce, Chairman, and they have all been pretty darn good, and so I really appreciate your leadership.

To Mr. Sabo, I wish you well. You have had a great career. It has been an honor, especially in these past 4 years, to serve with you and watch your leadership.

What I would like both of you to know is that our staffs here are some of the unsung heroes and I think the real patriots. They do incredible work. They listen, they study, and then they enact, and they enable us to do some of the good things we are doing here, and they have enabled us to make this Nation more secure.

The American people need to know this committee has served respectfully and greatly in a bipartisan fashion. For example, since 9/ 11, we have been able to provide almost $40 billion for first responders. In this report is an example: $662 million for the assistance of firefighter grant programs, $7 million more than the 2006 number was and $370 million more than what the President asked for.

We also found that balance by finding minimal security levels throughout the Nation that are satisfactory and, as well, made sure we had targeted money, $770 million, for the Urban Area Security Initiative. We do substantial work on ports, $4.34 billion; and $21 billion on the borders.

Mr. Chairman, I think you have really identified what those priorities are, and we have balanced them very well.

Finally, on WHTI, I just want to say that I think we have worked out a flexible compromise that will allow us to provide security and maintain our economic interests.

Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of the corresponding House legislation, I rise in strong support of S. 3613, a bill to designate the Post Office in Averill Park, NY, the Major George Quamo Post Office.

Major Quamo was a resident of my congressional district. He attended Averill Park High School, where he was the president of his class, and graduated with distinction in 1958. Less than 3 months later he enlisted in the U.S. Army.

After serving honorably in the Army for nearly 10 years, his life was cut tragically short in the Vietnam War, at the young age of 28.

Major Quamo commanded a team of the Army Special Forces, a group that led a number of covert missions during Vietnam Conflict. He was the youngest Major in Vietnam's Military Assistance Command.

When his helicopter crashed in the Vietnamese jungle, his remains were not discovered until 6 years later. He was returned to the U.S. and quietly buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Having saved over 14 soldier's lives and exhibiting legendary heroism, his accomplishments went unrecognized until recently. Major Quamo was awarded over 26 medals including the Distinguished Service Cross, 2 silver stars, a bronze star, the Legion of Merit and the Presidential Unit Citation.

Major Quamo served his country with extraordinary courage and was one of the most highly decorated soldiers in the Vietnam Conflict. I would be privileged and honored to name a post office in his memory to rest in his hometown to remind all of the residents in Averill Park of his exemplary valor and service to his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Managers Amendment to H.R. 5835, the Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act of 2006.

Over the past 5 months, data security incidents at the Department of Veterans Affairs, State Department and Census Bureau have raised concern over the use of secure data at these and other Federal agencies.

The VA learned that an employee took home electronic records of 26.5 million veterans and 2.2 active-duty soldiers from the VA, which he was not authorized to do.

A hacker at the State Department gave thieves access to a finite amount of information, access to data and passwords.

The census bureau lost track of over 1,000 laptops, some of which contained sensitive personal information.

Americans secure information was put at extreme risk and raised concerns about data security in the Federal Government to a whole new level.

GAO reports released in July 2005 and again in March of 2006, revealed despite progress in implementing Federal requirements to protect information and systems, the 24 major Federal agencies' experienced continued pervasive weaknesses in information security policies and practices. Their flaws put Federal operations, citizens personal financial data and assets at risk of fraud, misuse, disclosure and destruction.

That is why I introduced H.R. 5820, the Federal Agency Data Privacy Protection Act, legislation that adds security measures to all Federal agencies data usage and administration. This manager's amendment includes a number of provisions included in my legislation.

It is important that we protect the sensitive information Americans provide to us so that we can assist them and we must provide the best possible responses to personal information being placed at risk. It is critical that we provide proper protections to individuals who may be affected by these thefts.

This amendment also extends the definition of what constitutes secure data so that we can provide the best protection for all personal information used by Federal agencies.

Americans place their trust in the Federal Government to protect the information they provide. In this age of technology, we have an obligation to protect that information and serve the people of this Nation. I urge my colleagues support on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the young women of the Shenendehowa High School's Color Guard for their second place finish at the Scholastic Open Class Winter Guard 2006 World Championship in Dayton, Ohio. This accomplishment reflects the immeasurable amount of time and effort that each member of the team made in order to succeed. Their triumphant endeavor is a tribute to the dedication of the team, their training staff, and their families.

Competitive Color Guards provide an educational experience through a combination of sport and performing arts. The experience promotes perseverance and teamwork, which will be beneficial to the performers throughout their lives. The talented young women comprising this accomplished team are: Amelia Allen; Lauren Anderson; Larissa Krushelnytsky; Beth Murphy; Leah Homing; Taylor Nelson; Amanda Lesniewski; Ali Kawola; Sarah Ozols; Carolyn Drislane; Lauren Drislane; Faith Beidl; Kim Cologgi; Kaitlin Lacey; Casey Breen; Jessica Young; Samantha Lovering.

The success of this devoted team is also due to the hard work and commitment of their Director, Scott Snell and Show Designer, Jeff Namian as well as the rest of the staff, including: Jennifer Lawrence; Christine Mertes; Gretchen Shyne; Bill Ryan; Patrick Leombrone; Nick Charles; Sonya Balaban.

It is my privilege to recognize the Shenendehowa Color Guard for their achievement. Their ability to come together as a group of individuals and finish at the top of a world-class event is inspiring. On behalf of the

United States Congress, I offer my heartfelt congratulations and wish the entire team the best of luck and continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor one of our Nation's true heroes, Gunnery Sgt. Hawley Waldron. A decorated and distinguished serviceman, Gunnery Sergeant Hawley Waldron was an inspiration to the men he fought with in the First World War, though not even those closest to him truly understood the extent of his valor. He was a resident of Saratoga County, and I am honored to represent members of the Waldron family who take great pride in Hawley's accomplishments.

Hawley led a selfless life, never speaking of the numerous accolades he received during the war, leaving his family to discover these achievements only after his passing in 1961. Gunnery Sgt. Waldron received several awards and medals during his service including the silver star along with two gold stars signifying three separate awards for valor. He also received two Croix de Guerre decorations given by the government of France for his service. He was decorated following the battle of Belleau Wood, in which he helped the Allied forces turn back the German army advancing on Paris and in doing so paved the way for Germany's ultimate defeat.

America's armed service men and women are held in the highest regard in this Nation and Hawley Waldron was one of our greatest. It is with great joy and respect that I commend the late Gunnery Sgt. Waldron for his accomplishments and the many distinguished honors he received over his 2 years of service in World War I. Our country is truly safer and honored to have had someone of the character, caliber, and courage of Gunnery Sgt. Hawley Waldron. I would like to offer the deepest gratitude on behalf of myself, the United States House of Representatives and all Americans for his dedication to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor and recognize 20 exceptional high school students in my Congressional District that were the recipients of the 2006 Presidential Freedom Scholarship. The immeasurable amount of time and effort that these students have volunteered this past year has helped countless citizens of my district, and has made New York's 20th a better place to live.

The Presidential Freedom Scholarship promotes student service and civic engagement by recognizing high school students for outstanding leadership in service to their community and neighbors. This year's recipients in my Congressional District include:

David Casazza, Paige Hanselman, Andrea E. Holmes, Chad M. Shippee, Vanessa A. Merrill, Kathleen B. Price, Renee C. O'Toole, Eric R. Reeve, Craig Millward, Nicholas Kitsock, Patrick K. Gavin-Brynes, Meghan G. Michael, Brian Driscoll, Katelin M. Meehan, Michael Fueston, Stephen R. McGrath, Philip J. Schools, Kathleen Dillon, Jaimie N. DeJager, and Vincent A. Newell.

By completing at least 100 hours of community service, these high school students are solving problems in their communities, demonstrating compassion for others, and assisting those who need support.

Our neighborhoods and communities are stronger because of volunteers and these students are truly a role model for our nation and their peers. It is my privilege to honor such selfless and dedicated members of my district. On behalf of the United States Congress, I offer my best wishes to them for continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and its underlying bill. But I do want to respond to my friends on the other side

and their comments about the appropriateness of this particular piece of legislation, which I believe they support being on the floor here.

Since 1979, there have been efforts and attempts and a struggle to bring this piece of legislation to the floor for open public debate so that we can flush out the fact from the fiction.

And while I know and I believe over the next month we will be debating a number of important issues, like border security, like protecting this Nation, and our war on terror, this is a piece of legislation that is long overdue and needs to be discussed and needs to be disposed of in an appropriate fashion.

As author of the legislation, I have worked tirelessly to bring it to the floor. What the bill does is it prohibits the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling or donation of horses or other equines for the slaughter for human consumption.

It makes it impossible to do so in the United States but also prohibits the transport to Canada and Mexico. And some might ask, why is that important? Well, it is important for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that it is one of the most inhumane, brutal, shady practices going on today in this Nation.

It is important because more than 70 percent of the American people, at least every survey I have ever seen, support the notion that we ought to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption. It is important because a substantial number of States have outlawed this practice, yet because of a Federal court case, an injunction has been obtained in which the court has essentially said, unless Congress acts, this practice can go on despite the will of the people and the States involved.

For years I had hoped for a fair and honest debate on this issue. We have been thwarted in that effort until now. Each year, 90,000 horses in the country are slaughtered and shipped overseas to Europe and Asia where they are served in restaurants as a delicacy, not as a necessity. I want this process stopped, and some of my colleagues in this chamber do not.

This rule gives us the opportunity for that fair and open debate. I want to thank the Rules Committee and its chairman, Mr. Dreier, for that opportunity. However, I must stress that I have real concerns over the seven amendments that are possibly going to be introduced in the course of today's debate.

I have concerns about it, because they are being introduced by people who have for a long time tried to stop this debate from happening in the first instance, and, therefore, then I would suggest that every one of these amendments are poison pills. Every one of these amendments are intended for one thing, that is to continue this practice, a practice that I do not want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, is subsidized by this Federal Government.

Now, last year, my good friend from Florida pointed out, last year we passed with 269 votes an amendment in the ag appropriation bill that said taxpayer dollars should not be used for something the American people do not support in the first instance; should not be used to subsidize and continue this process.

Despite passing that piece of legislation, the USDA and others thwarted our efforts to have the right thing happen.

I would suggest to my colleagues that today we send a strong message: We end this practice. And, yes, let's get on with the other business of this House. But after many, many years, three decades of attempts, it is about time we passed this legislation and ended this practice.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Chairman, today we are going to have a serious discussion that in my estimation is long overdue. Since 1979, Members of Congress, with the vast and substantial support of the American people, have tried to have this issue resolved.

What I speak of is H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Mr. Peterson, my good friend, made what I think is one point I will agree with him on. This is a debate about what is humane. And despite the words and the rhetoric of the opponents of this legislation, the focus should be on the issue of what is humane and what the will of the people are, because what we are exposing today is a brutal, shadowy, shameful, predatory practice that borders on the perverse.

Public opinion, as I said, is substantially in support. Every poll that I have seen, 70 percent of the American people want this practice banned and stopped, the practice of horse slaughter for human consumption, something culturally the United States has never accepted nor have any of the Indian territories within the United States.

Editorials were recited a bit earlier, but I will give you some editorials. Today the Washington Post, with a diametrically different view of the world than the Washington Times, both editorialized saying that this practice should end. It reflects on our culture. It reflects on our priorities inappropriately and improperly.

In California, a referendum was passed with 60 percent of the vote saying that that practice should be banned in California. And there is Texas law, and many other States have laws that ban the practice. What H.R. 503 does is it prohibits the shipping, the transporting, the moving, the delivering, the receiving, the purchasing, selling or donation of horses and other equines for slaughter for human consumption.

What I really want to emphasize though is what this practice is. The opponents have said this is a humane process. The opponents have said that this is going to limit individuals' rights and individuals' property rights, none of that being true.

What this is going to do is stop a practice that, first of all, is in violation of many State laws and, secondly, is not adhered to or supported by substantial populations, and it is brutal.

This picture here, this is a horse's head. This is a horse's head that was discovered in transport to one of the slaughter houses. What we have here are three slaughter house factories, two in Texas, one in Illinois, both operating with substantial local opposition and presenting substantial environmental and economic problems to those communities.

What we have are horses from all over the country, thousands of miles away, transported in cramped cattle or pig trailers or trucks. Not designed or built for horses, not designed to transport horses. They are often purchased in a predatory fashion by killer-buyers who do not disclose what the purpose of their purchase is going to be, who, as I said, operate in a shadowy way.

They bring these beautiful animals those thousands of miles in these cramped conditions with all different types of horses cramped in, despite USDA regulations that say you cannot transport them that way. The irony, Mr. Chairman, is on the day the Agriculture Committee marked up its bill, a bill which the amendments will be to the floor in a little while, all meant to continue that practice, to kill H.R. 503; on the very day they were marking up that bill, an arrest was made in Mississippi of one of those predatory killer-buyers who had 20-25 horses in his care. He stopped because he got a flat tire. And the owner of the service station he stopped at saw the condition, the condition of these animals, and

called the police, thus allowing us to finally enforce the law.

Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill because USDA has not done their job. In fact, they have been on the other side of the issue consistently. They surreptitiously overturned Congressional action last year. Ms. Schakowsky pointed that out earlier. We need to bring an end to this practice because it says too much about us.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of my colleague and his sentiments, and I need to make a couple of points because there is a substantial skewing of the record here.

First of all, in 1989, 350-some-odd thousand horses were slaughtered. We have that number down to below 90,000. That is 1 percent of the horse population that is put down every year.

Secondly, the gentleman says that this will preclude an option for putting down his horse if his horse becomes lame. I would make two points. One is that 90-plus percent of the horses that are sent to slaughter facilities are rated by the USDA as being healthy and strong and fit animals.

So this is not about putting down animals, and if you have that problem, there still are humane procedures. You can go to a local vet and have your local vet for $50 to $250 oversee the process of putting your animal down.

Frankly, this bill does not stop an owner from putting a horse down themselves by any means.

This bill prohibits the public transportation of that. This bill prohibits the slaughter for human consumption at these three facilities.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

This is not about that. This is about horses which are in a special place. This is about a practice that is profusely out of whack with the standards of America.

Reclaiming my time, I want to talk about the slaughter facilities themselves. These houses do not contribute to this economy. In his written testimony during the committee hearings on H.R. 503, Dick Koehler, vice president of Beltex Corp., a slaughter plant in Fort Worth, Texas, described the horse slaughter industry as a tax-paying legitimate business. Yet witnesses at that same hearing revealed tax returns showing that Dallas Crown, Inc., based in Kaufman, Texas, made $12 million in revenue 1 year and paid only $5 in U.S. taxes.

The U.S. exports 18,000 tons of horse meat, netting $65 million in 2005; and the profits went back to the countries of the owners of those plants. Two of them are from Belgium. One of them is from France.

There are costs to the local economies. It is a practice that is abhorrent and that is not supported.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear in a little while that there is substantial support in the ag community and other places, and I will grant that there is substantial opposition to this bill, as well as substantial support, within 500 horse organizations.

But what I find most sad and in a way ironic is that an organization like the American Veterinary Medical Association opposes this legislation when employees of a slaughter plant blatantly do not follow the AVMA procedure for slaughtering a horse.

Again, an important notion to understand is that slaughter is not the same as humane euthanasia by a qualified veterinarian. Euthanasia, according to AVMA, is an act of inducing humane death that is respectful and is painless and as distress free as possible.

Yet we saw in that picture, that was transport, that was not even slaughter. That was a horse in transport. Horses suffer horribly on the way to and during slaughter, where they often endure repeated blows to the head and upper body before being hoisted up for slaughter, sometimes still conscious. That is not euthanasia.

Slaughter is markedly different than acceptable forms of euthanasia. The AVMA requires that a captive bolt method must be administered by trained, skilled and monitored personnel and that the horse must be adequately restrained. These requirements are typically not met in equine slaughter plants, thus raising significant welfare concerns.

Let me say something about the plants, too. One of the issues raised is that you are going to shut these plants down and people are going to lose their jobs. We are talking about something in the range of 150 employees. To my friends on my side of the aisle who talk all the time about how we have got to be tough on immigration, I suggest to you that a substantial number of those workers are not in this country under legal means. They are low-level laborers. It is the only people they could find to do this.

I would also inform my colleagues that all three of these facilities, all three of these facilities operate and slaughter for other means, other livestock, and that they could simply go to that business. This is a practice that is not adhered to or supported.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Well, there are requirements for the transport under USDA. The problem is USDA does not enforce those requirements.

I would suggest, Mr. Peterson, that people who are rescuing horses have a different mindset and intent than those who are slaughtering for human consumption.

And 20 percent of the horse population, in reporting data out of California and everywhere else, suggests absolutely the opposite.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. Let's be very clear, all of these amendments have one intended purpose, and that is to destroy the bill. So if you are in favor of the ban of horse slaughter for human consumption, you need to vote against all of the amendments.

This number, this establishment of an arbitrary number, is false. It will not be obtained because there are so many other options for horse owners other than horse sanctuary, but let's understand the facts.

The current horse population is estimated at 9 million. As has been said, each year, roughly 900,000 horses die. About 90,000, or 1 percent, are actually slaughtered. Furthermore, in 1989, the U.S. slaughtered over 342 horses. In 2005, they slaughtered 90,000. Since then, the United States slaughtered approximately 200,000 fewer horses. So 90,000 horses can be easily absorbed into the population. And not all of these horses will need to be absorbed into rescue and sanctuary populations. Horses will die or become sick or dangerous to their owners. These horses will need to be replaced. These horses will become pets or workhorses or show horses.

Both the Bureau of Land Management and hundreds of private organizations and agencies provide adoption programs for people to replace these horses by adopting new ones. Additionally, thousands of these horses are humanely euthanized each year.

Madam Chairman, this amendment, this proposal, is simply meant to ensure that this bill is never enacted. We should vote it down, and we should vote it down very strongly.

Madam Chairman, there are two giant loopholes created here, and I will submit for the Record statements by a number of Indian tribes, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association, the Inter- Tribal Council of Nevada, and the National Congress of American Indians, in opposition to this amendment.

Great Plains

Tribal Chairman's Association,

Eagle Butte, SD, September 6, 2006.

Resolution of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association

Whereas, the Great Plains (formerly Aberdeen Area) Tribal

Chairman's Association (GPTCA) is composed of the elected

Chairs and Presidents of the sovereign Indian Tribes and

Nations recognized by Treaties with the United States that

are within the Great Plains Region of the Bureau of Indian

Affairs; and

Whereas, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association was

formed to promote the common interests of the sovereign

Tribes and Nations and their members of the Great Plains

Region; and

Whereas, the United States has obligated itself both

through Treaties entered into with the sovereign Tribes and

Nations of the Great Plains Region and through its own

federal statutes, the Snyder Act of 1921 as amended, the

Indian Self-Determination Act of 1976 as amended, and the

Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 as amended; and

Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains have strong

spiritual, cultural, and historical ties to wild horses; and

Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains are disheartened

and alarmed by the new language in Appropriations Bill H.R.

4818 that would allow the slaughter of these sacred animals;

and

Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains are concerned that

wild horses are fast disappearing and that soon there will

not be sufficient numbers to sustain healthy populations; and

Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains recognize wild

horses as one of the last living symbols that represent our

ancestral past; and

Whereas, the wild horses have no one to speak for them and

the Tribes of the Great Plains are compelled to step forward

on behalf of the last remaining wild horses in the United

States; and: Now, therefore be it

Resolved; That the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's

Association opposes the slaughter of wild horses and supports

adoption of wild horses with the federal government waiving

the adoption fee and providing funds for transportation in

order to prevent their slaughter; and: Now, therefore be it

further

Resolved; That the Great Plains Tribes support and

encourage the reintroduction and reinstitution of protective

legislation in the 109th United States Congress to prevent

wild horses and burros from being slaughtered and maintain a

viable number of animals on the public lands; and: Now, be it

finally

Resolved; The Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association

call upon other Tribes and Indian Nations to join with us in

all efforts to find solutions for the preservation of wild

horses.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor and recognize David Andersen, President and CEO of Saratoga Hospital and Saratoga Care Inc., in celebration of his retirement on August 31, 2006. The immeasurable amount of time and effort that David has given during his career has helped countless citizens of my district, and has made Saratoga County a better place to live.

Since becoming President and CEO of Saratoga Hospital in 1991, David has greatly expanded and improved the healthcare capabilities available to those in need throughout Saratoga County. Under his leadership the hospital merged with Family Health Centers in the towns of Ballston Spa, Galway, and Schuylerville, and established Saratoga Care Inc. as the parent company of the combined healthcare organization. During his tenure, David oversaw the creation of the Same Day Surgery Center, the Cardiac Catheterization Center, the Saratoga Surgery Center, the Radiation Oncology Center, the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Center, and Wilton Medical Arts as affiliates of Saratoga Hospital. David has also worked to implement innovative healthcare education programs through Saratoga Care, to give patients and their families the knowledge they need to make difficult healthcare decisions. Through his tireless dedication to his profession, Saratoga Hospital and its affiliates have become among the healthiest in the Capital District of New York.

It is my privilege to honor such a selfless and dedicated member of my district. All citizens should be able to have access to the best quality healthcare available, and through David's leadership and the expansion of the Saratoga Hospital and its affiliates, that has become a reality to so many of my constituents in Saratoga County. On behalf of the House of Representatives I would like to commend David Andersen on a truly distinguished career and wish him the best of luck in the future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I came here tonight to vote for much-needed pension reform and to provide Americans with a better living wage. And I would have preferred a simpler, more straightforward minimum-wage vote as well. In fact, I voted that way in the Appropriations Committee. I voted for Mr. Hoyer's provision that extended the minimum wage for 30 months, or extended a raise for 30 months to $7.15.

I come here tonight to say that I am going to vote for this bill, and I had actually hoped to vote for the Democratic motion to recommit, if it had been a simple, straightforward proposition to vote. And I note that the Democrats have had a number of opportunities to bring a straightforward

minimum-wage vote to the floor, as they have done in a variety of other instances on a variety of other issues, but never have done it.

So it leads me to this one thought, that if we are actually serious about the minimum wage and passing a minimum-wage increase, and I say this as a former State labor commissioner and I say this as someone who worked numerous minimum-wage jobs over the course of my life, I say this as someone who comes from a blue collar background, not a privileged background, and I would note that some of the leadership on the other side comes from much better standing than I, you would have brought that bill and worked in good faith to negotiate. But that didn't happen. That didn't happen because politics won the day here. Rather than passing a minimum-wage increase, it was decided that we wanted to preserve an issue. That is wrong. It doesn't serve the American people.

In terms of including the estate tax, what I had said all along is I would like to see a minimum-wage increase, but we need offsets to small businesses and farmers who make up 90 percent of the employment in my district. So when you say that an estate tax, an extension of the estate tax isn't viable, doesn't belong in this bill, tell that to the farmers in my district like Tom Borden who runs the orchard and dairy farm in eastern New York; or Paul Schmidt, a dairy farmer in Posenkill, both of whom have been begging to see this estate tax eliminated for years so they can sleep at night knowing that despite all the hard work and all the government regulation and all the burdens that they have faced, they can pass on to their family that valuable contribution to society that they have.

So be careful. Be careful when you demagogue this issue. Be careful when you politicize this issue. This is about representing people. We need to pass a minimum wage. I am in favor of this bill, and I am going to oppose the motion to recommit, and I suggest my colleagues do the same.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 407, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to day in opposition of the Berkley amendment. This amendment would outlaw all gambling online throughout the United States. This is unnecessary and would hurt the domestic horseracing industry. The domestic horseracing industry is already regulated. This amendment would put unnecessary burdens on an industry that operates above board.

A provision allowing for legal horse gambling domestically and opening the door to allow horse gambling over the Internet is included in this bill. Regulated by States though the Interstate Horseracing Act, IHA, this provision was agreed to by the Justice Department and the domestic horseracing industry.

The primary focus of H.R. 4411 is to curb illegal--primarily offshore--wagering, not regulate further the domestic horse industry. We need to allow the States to continue regulating horseracing via State racing commissions or legislatures.

Currently, ongoing discussions are occurring between Justice Department and the horseracing industry concerning horse race gambling over the Internet. The Berkley amendment would prevent this review from continuing.

The horseracing industry is a massive economic engine in our Nation, providing $26 billion in economic activity and maintaining over 1 million jobs. In my district alone, which is home to the Saratoga Racetrack, the oldest thoroughbred track in the country, the horseracing industry brings in over $70 million into the local economy. If this amendment passes, hard-working individuals would certainly lose their jobs. The industry sustains more than 40,000 people across my home State of New York, over 10,000 in my district.

The industry supports a large sector of small businesses and is the reason for the existence of more than 400 New York State breeding farms. During the 2005 season alone, the Saratoga Racetrack attracted 1 million people, who wagered approximately $145 million. That equates to 1 million people in Saratoga spending $70 million at local restaurants, stores and various other attractions. These people make Saratoga the jewel of upstate New York that it is. We ought not to punish a legitimate industry that is already regulated.

This is a responsible industry that provides jobs, pumps money into our economy and is already regulated. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Let me point out that I think Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan have done a spectacular job in very tight circumstances with this bill. Having been on the committee in the past, I am very proud of this work product.

As my friend from Georgia pointed out, this bill has a multiple of purposes, and one of them is to help fund the efforts of the State Department to establish diplomatic relations throughout the world.

Twenty years ago in West Berlin the La Belle Discotheque was bombed by the Libyan Government. Eighteen years ago, over Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan Am Flight 103 was shot down by the Libyan Government.

Madam Speaker, that was at the beginning of, the early part of, the war on terror and terrorism. Lockerbie had an incredible toll, 270 murdered victims, with 189 Americans part of that. La Belle had two GIs murdered in that bombing and 50 permanently injured American citizens.

In 2002, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families of Lockerbie in order to avoid a criminal trial, avoid a criminal trial. In 2004, they agreed to pay $35 million to the victims of the La Belle Discotheque.

During the full Appropriations Committee markup, I passed an amendment, Madam Speaker, that prohibits the State Department from fully establishing diplomatic ties with Libya and accepting a Libyan ambassador until the Libyan Government makes full compensation payments to the victims of these two horrendous terrorist acts. You may ask why I did that and why that was appropriated in this bill. Well, it is about timing.

On May 15, the State Department proposed the removal of Libya from the list of state-sponsored terrorist nations. Congress has 45 days under the law to review that removal. That 45 days will be up this Thursday. I fear very much so, and that is why we incorporated it into this bill, that this is the last opportunity that this government has to do the right thing for the people, for American citizens who have been victimized by terrorist attacks.

Without the language that was put into the full appropriations markup and protected by the Rules Committee, this Congress, this government, might not be there to stand and do the right thing, which, unfortunately, over the last 20 years it has shown it has not been all that willing to do for the victims of these vicious attacks.

So I want to thank Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee and I want to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos of the International Relations Committee for agreeing that it is important that we go forward and ensure that the full compensation, the reparations, if you will, to these families, is maintained.

Madam Speaker, in 2002, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families, in order to avoid a criminal trial. While 80 percent of that agreement has been met, the remaining 20 percent was held back by Libya as long as they remained on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Libya has now been removed from that list, and must now follow through on its agreements. The State Department removed Libya from the list on May 15th. Congress has 45 days to review the removal of Libya. That 45-day window is up on Thursday. We need to send a strong signal to Libya that they must live up to their deal.

Some of my constituents experienced this act of terror very personally. Glendon and Margaret Rafferty, of Ticonderoga in my Congressional District, lost four family members--

their daughter Bonnie Leigh Williams, son-in-law Eric, and granddaughters Stephanie and Brittany. Joan and Tom Dater, of Pittstown in my Congressional District, lost their daughter, Gretchen.

Despite Libya's pending removal from the state sponsors of terror list, Libya publicly stated yesterday they are no longer obliged to pay the final installment of these reparations to the families. This is unacceptable.

I will point out to my colleagues, if they don't think it is serious, the Libyan Government indicated yesterday that they don't intend to meet the full obligations under this agreement, just as they have for 20 years stonewalled efforts by those families to reach some reward; and I don't know if we can call it a just reward, because it really isn't. Money is not going to replace their loved ones or their children murdered here, but at least some branch of this government is going to step up and say that it is wrong that that happened, that we not going to let it happen, and you don't just get a free pass back in once you have committed those kinds of horrendous, awful terrorist acts.

I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for joining with me on this. I want to let the families of these attacks know that we are with them.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this bill. I am proud to serve as the Vice-Chairman of this Subcommittee. I want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Rehberg, because Amtrak is an essential service in my Congressional District and home state of New York.

We have had this debate every year, and we go through this process in each of those years. Last year in particular, we fought possibly the toughest battle in years for passenger rail. We were threatened with vetoes, unless some Amtrak reforms were enacted. So what did we do? We enacted reform. One year later, we have seen evidence these reforms are working.

Yet, here we are today with a proposal to fund Amtrak at $900 million. This allocation is a shutdown number for Amtrak, and it would come at the worst possible time to shut down Amtrak.

This is because we have seen evidence these reforms are working. We required Amtrak put in place a new business plan. We required Amtrak to institute new service contracts and plans. For instance, they had to adopt more efficient accounting procedures. We also demanded they restructure their dining services, which was a big money loser.

The Department of Transportation Inspector General just issued a report on Amtrak business practices. According to this April 6th report, Amtrak has saved $19 million from October 2005 through February 2006, thanks to these reforms. This is better than expected.

Amtrak is saving money because of the institution of these new reform plans that we demanded of them. To now shut them down would go back on our word. They lived up to their end of the deal, now we must live up to ours.

Finally, in these times of record high gasoline prices, allow me to mention that Amtrak promotes fuel conservation. At this time, when we are all sensitive about that, it is something that we ought to seriously consider.

A recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows Amtrak consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger than automobiles and 18 percent less than planes. A vote to fund Amtrak is a vote to promote energy independence.

I am not naive enough to think that this will solve all of our energy problems. Our energy policy should be a multi-faceted approach involving increasing our supply of traditional energy, investing in forms of alternative energy and promoting conservation. Increasing our domestic supply and investing in alternative fuels takes time--years in many cases.

Here is an amendment that is part of this larger solution. Furthermore, this is an amendment that will make an immediate difference. This will not save gasoline 1 year, 5 years, 10 years from now. This will save gasoline tomorrow.

I urge support of the LaTourette Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment over the exclusion of section 206 as well as this amendment from the FY07 TTHUD bill.

Rep. Tiahrt's amendment--of which neither provision has any negative impact on or shuts down any current IRS program or service--would prevent the IRS from using taxpayer dollars to develop programs such as return-free tax filing systems, interactive tax filing systems and web portals.

These systems would overextend the IRS, expanding it beyond and diluting its core mission of tax collection and regulation. The costs

of developing, implementing and maintaining them would total billions of dollars. All this is even more strikingly troublesome given a recent Wall Street Journal poll that found that 70% of Americans don't want the IRS preparing their taxes anyway.

I share the sentiments of the American people. As far as I'm concerned, having the IRS prepare your taxes is a little like sending your dog to the butcher to pick up your order--it doesn't serve your best interest.

Despite the assurances of Secretary Snow and Commissioner Everson, there is currently nothing in statute that stops the IRS from developing and implementing a return-free tax filing system. Yet we already have a program in place that serves the purpose of these costly systems.

It is called the Free File Alliance--of which my home state of New York is a member and it assists people who otherwise cannot afford tax preparation or e-filing. The Free File Alliance is a private sector program, and provides free preparation services to poor and low-income families, and since its inception in 2002 it has provided 15.3 million free Federal tax returns.

Now, the Free File Alliance is not a perfect system yet, and it is still in need of additional oversight and reform. However, its existence means that the infrastructure for such systems is already in place, making the costly development of virtually identical IRS programs unnecessary.