Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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. GOODLATTE

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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).

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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. GOODLATTE. 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.

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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).

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.