John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I withdraw my previous unanimous consent request and I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 1726.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleagues, Senators Byrd, Landrieu, Graham, Lott, Stabenow, DeMint, Feinstein, and Lautenberg, to submit an amendment to the 2006 Senate Agriculture appropriations bill. The goal of our amendment is simple: to end the slaughter of America's horses for human consumption overseas. I graduated from Colorado State with a degree in veterinary medicine. I have been concerned with animal welfare since my earlier days as a youth and pursued those interests as a practicing veterinarian. Our Nation's history and cultural heritage is strongly associated with horses. George Washington is pictured many places with horses. We are reminded of the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express in the West. The Depression era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral raised the morale of our country during desperate times. The owners who sell their horses at auction are often unaware that those horses may be on their way to one of the three remaining horse slaughterhouses in America. These slaughterhouses--two in Texas and one in Illinois--are owned by French and Belgium companies. They slaughter American horses almost exclusively for one purpose--exporting the meat overseas for human consumption. Workhorses, racehorses, and even pet horses--many young and healthy-- are slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia, where their meat is considered a delicacy. The profits, along with the product, are shipped overseas. These horses are slaughtered in America and shipped to Japan, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany for human consumption. Last year, nearly 100,000 American horses were slaughtered for human consumption overseas. Sixty-five thousand of these were sent to three slaughterhouses in the United States, and more than 30,000 were shipped across our borders to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. Our amendment effectively stops this practice. It restricts the use of Federal funds for the inspection of horses being sent to slaughterhouses for human consumption. Without these inspections, required under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, horses cannot be slaughtered, or exported for slaughter, for human consumption overseas. Strong support for our amendment is reflected in the House of Representatives, where an identical measure was passed by a vote of 269 to 158 this past June. We have several articles and editorials from around the country that have been written in support of our amendment. Articles have appeared in the Washington Times, the St. Petersburg Times, the Charleston Gazette, and the Louisville Courier-Journal, just to name a few. I ask unanimous consent to have these articles printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Ensign-Byrd amendment also has strong support from some of the people most familiar with the slaughterhouses. Paula Bacon, the mayor of Kaufman, TX, which is home to the Dallas Crown Slaughterhouse, recognized the importance of ending this slaughter. She stated: My city is little more than a doormat for a foreign-owned business that drains our resources, thwarts economic development and stigmatizes our community. There is no justification for spending American tax dollars to support this industry. That is Paula Bacon, mayor of Kaufman, TX, home to the Dallas Crown horse slaughterhouse facility. Members of the local community would like to see this slaughterhouse closed, as well. Concerns have been raised about what will happen if this slaughter is ended. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner. Some horses will be kept longer by their original owner, others will be euthanized humanely by a licensed veterinarian, and still others will be cared for by the horse rescue community. Efforts are underway to standardize practices for horse rescue organizations. Guidelines for this ever- growing sector have been developed by the animal protection community and embraced by sanctuaries. Statistics do not support claims that this legislation will result in more abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. In Illinois, the number of abuse cases actually dropped from 2002 to 2004, when the State's only slaughterhouse was closed due to fire. In California, there has been no rise in neglect cases since the State passed a ban on slaughter for human consumption in 1998. Furthermore, it is illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a horse, so this amendment will not lead to more orphaned horses. If a person attempts to turn his or her horses out, animal control agents can enforce humane laws. These animals still can be euthanized and disposed of by a veterinarian for about $225, a fraction of the cost to keep a horse. That cost is not too big of a burden to bear when no other options are available. Our amendment is good for horses. That is why it is supported by many animal protection groups. The Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Doris Day Animal League, the American Humane Association, and Society for Animal Protective Legislation--all support our legislation. We have also received support from much of the horse industry and veterinarians nationwide. In fact, congressional measures to end horse slaughter are supported by Veterinarians for Equine Welfare, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, Churchill Downs, Incorporated, and dozens of owners and trainers of champion racehorses, including Kentucky Derby winners. The time to end this slaughter is now. Please join my colleagues and me in supporting this important amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may offer an amendment dealing with horse inspection and that no second-degree amendments be in order.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, as a fiscal conservative there are very few areas in which I believe Federal funding should be increased. One of those few areas, however, is that of the National Science Foundation. Funding of the National Science Foundation should be a national priority. Congress established the National Science Foundation in 1950 with the broad mission ``to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense.'' In this capacity, NSF plays a critical role in underwriting basic research at colleges, universities, and other institutions throughout our Nation. Basic research supported by NSF in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology, genomics, and semiconductor manufacturing has brought about some of the most significant innovations of the last 20 years. For example, the World Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging and fiber optics technology all emerged through basic research projects that received NSF funding. Research supported by NSF accounts for approximately 40 percent of non-life-science basic research at U.S. academic institutions while representing less than 4 percent of the Federal funding for R&D. Support for NSF's efforts to fund basic research is particularly important due to the impact of such research on innovation and global competitiveness. To remain globally competitive in the 21st century, the United States must continue to lead the world's innovation. Innovation fosters the new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to better jobs, higher wages and a higher standard of living. While innovation is the key to the future, basic research is the key to future innovation. And today, the future of basic research appears vulnerable. Over the last 30 years, Federal funding in support of basic research has remained flat in constant dollars and decreased by 37 percent as a share of GDP. Especially given increased competition from nations like China and India, failure to support the NSF and basic research creates a serious long-term risk for our nation. U.S. competitiveness in global markets and the creation of good jobs at home rely increasingly on the cutting edge innovation that stems from high-risk basic research. U.S. technological leadership, innovation, and jobs of tomorrow require a commitment to basic research funding today. Congress approved and President Bush signed the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. That Act authorized funding for NSF at appropriate levels, but funding for NSF has consistently lagged behind the amounts authorized. In fiscal year 2005, NSF received funding that was approximately $2 billion less than authorized. In fiscal year 2006, we are considering funding NSF at levels approximately $3 billion less than authorized. As we consider funding priorities on the CJS bill and in the future, I urge the chairman, ranking member, and my fellow colleagues to make it a priority to fund NSF and to support increased basic research.

Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the chair and the ranking member for their leadership on this legislation, and look forward to working with both of them on promoting the basic research done at NSF in our country. stem education funding

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Lieberman amendment violates rule XVI.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about yesterday's court decision which ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. I am concerned, but certainly not surprised, with this decision. And I am very concerned with the decision's implications. It is time for us to take a stand against activist judges who seek to circumvent the will of the American people and who issue judgments flying in the face of decency and common sense. With all that is going on in our world today, to attack the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains a reference to God is ludicrous. Most Americans were outraged when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed the case. The Supreme Court said that the plaintiff in the Pledge of Allegiance case did not have standing. The Court found that, because he was not the custodial parent, he could not object to his daughter's reciting the pledge of allegiance in school. When that decision came down, many people, myself included, knew that it would only be a matter of time before the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, would be back. We were right. Yesterday, the Court, looking to the previous ninth circuit decision, ruled that the use of the simple phrase ``under God'' was a religious act. The Court found that a school policy involving the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance had a coercive religious effect. I strongly disagree that the pledge is coercive. I also strongly disagree with the court's decision. The Pledge of Allegiance, in addition to containing a statement of common values and patriotism, recognizes historic facts behind our Nation's founding. There are so many references in America to God, our Creator. Those references can be seen in our currency, on public buildings, even in the Declaration of Independence which is displayed a few blocks from the Capitol in the National Archives. This recent decision further emphasizes our Nation's need for judges who are respectful of people of faith and for judges who understand that America's continued reference, and reverence, toward the Creator are very important to our common culture.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank both managers of the bill for their indulgence. I look forward to speaking on the amendments later, but I appreciate the ability to lay them down at this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the Ensign-McCain amendment. Last year during the debate on the national intelligence reform bill, we adopted several of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including hiring 2,000 agents per year for border control. This bill, while it is an increase over what the President requested, only funds 1,000 new agents. What our amendment will do is fund the full 2,000. It will fund an additional 1,000 on top of what the original bill does. The offset to pay for this does not increase the deficit. It is all paid for under the bill. Some may question whether this offset makes any sense. I believe it does because we have limited resources at the Federal level, and we must spend those wisely. As recently as this past Sunday, a CBS News report did a segment on how some local governments were spending their dollars. These funds have been used to purchase defibrillators used at high school basketball games, not for national security, trailers to haul lawnmowers to annual lawnmower races. The program has been used to purchase Segway scooters at a computerized towing service. I urge our colleagues to support strengthening our borders and not using the money in wasteful ways.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Yes. I send a modification to the desk to that amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. I call up amendment numbered 1124 for its immediate consideration.