John Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Reclaiming my time, let me conclude by saying that I agree the purposes of this amendment are quite noble and that we as a body and as an institution should be promoting the ideas of reform and we should be intolerant and frustrated, but this amendment goes too far. And we have already taken steps and the mere fact we are having this debate I believe reinforces that message. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy regarding the fiscal year 2006 high-density high-threat urban area security initiatives, and I do so recognizing that we are in the process of debating and discussing the 2007 bill, and so the relevance is of some importance. Last week, DHS released the funding allocations for the 2006 homeland security grants program. I was extremely disappointed to see New York's overall allocation for the UASI program decreased by almost $83 million. It is tough to understand why, considering New York City remains the highest target to terrorism. New York has been attacked and targeted not once, but multiple times; and its security is a national concern. In fact, a Pakistani immigrant was just convicted last week for attempting to blow up a subway station at Herald Square. I have been fighting for a threat-based funding formula for several years because homeland security funding should be based on population, threat, vulnerability, and consequence. The program should never be used for pork spending. The formula I have been fighting for will benefit the areas that need it the most: those that face threats like New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, San Diego, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and many others where we know real threats exist. This debate is not a fight between rural and urban areas, and I would point out that I represent the 32nd most rural district in the country, and I know rural areas have essential infrastructure to protect as well. I learned from 9/11 that urban and rural areas are linked in terms of economics; and, frankly, as Americans, we all have the same concerns, so we must look for productive investments from DHS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your consideration to join with me in working toward a solution in addressing the process in an oversight hearing.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sabo- Sweeney amendment and would urge its adoption. Let me just say this. This amendment restores funding that I think is key and essential. First responders are our frontline defense in homeland security, critically important in so many ways for rural, urban and suburban communities. I know, for example, as a New Yorker that, on preparedness issues, both the SAFER Act and the firefighter grant dollars have been essential towards us prospectively and proactively preparing folks on the ground to really meet the needs of the community and really meet the needs of the Nation and making us prepared. So I could not urge my colleagues more strongly to be supportive of this amendment and would ask that it be adopted.

Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I also should point out that the chairman has worked very hard with all of us, both last year and this year, to make this a reality.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Rahall- Whltfleld-Sweeney-Spratt Amendment, which bans the sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses. I am pleased to state this exact same amendment passed the House last year with overwhelming support with a vote of 249-159. As my colleagues have stated, a measure was snuck into the FY05 Omnibus Appropriations bill to allow wild horses to be slaughtered for human consumption overseas. The provision to allow the sale and slaughter of wild horses was underhanded and wrong. When Congress unanimously passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, it established a policy to protect wild horses from capture, harassment, and death. BLM responsibly carried out this mission for 33 years, before the statute was secretly changed 2 years ago. Americans have clearly made their voices heard that these wild horses must be protected. This amendment is a responsible solution to this problem. The passage of this amendment would prevent BLM from selling horses--and close the loophole on slaughter. Since BLM began the sale of wild horses, a number of horses have been purchased and slaughtered. This has generated a massive public outcry. In response to this, BLM temporarily suspended its sale program, with the intent to resume the sale shortly. Mr. Speaker, this is not enough--it is urgent we pass this amendment and end this practice now. The slaughter of wild horses is indicative of the larger overall problem of horse slaughter. Last year, 90,000 American horses were slaughtered in this country and served as meals in restaurants in Europe and Asia. That is why I'm fighting for the passage of my legislation, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, H.R. 503, which bans the slaughter of ANY horse for human consumption. In addition to this same amendment last year, I also offered an amendment to the FY06 Agriculture Appropriation's Bill to temporarily suspend this horrific act. Although our amendment had enormous public support and overwhelmingly passed both chambers, the USDA defied the will of Congress by granting a petition allowing a fee-for-service option submitted by three foreign-owned horse slaughter plants to circumvent the ban. I am pleased to hear that I may finally get my stand-alone legislation, H.R. 503, addressed in committee so we aren't forced to do these stop-gap measures each year. I appreciate our Leadership and Chairman Barton reviewing the need for this legislation. I look forward to working with you as we address this cruel topic. Horse Slaughter is not humane euthanasia--it is a malicious, painful end for these animals. Americans don't eat horses, nor do we raise them for human consumption. This amendment will right a wrong and is a positive step forward in our ultimate goal of ending the slaughter of horses in the United States for human consumption overseas.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, Sunday is Mother's Day. In honor of all of our Mothers, I rise today to urge all my colleagues to push for passage of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act (H.R. 2231) this year. One out of eight women in the United States will develop breast cancer at some point in her lifetime. It afflicts our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our wives. It currently afflicts three million women--including one million women who do not yet know they have breast cancer. In New York alone, there is expected to be 14,400 new cases in 2006 and over 2,700 deaths due to breast cancer. The human toll of this disease is staggering. All women are at risk of getting breast cancer. In some way, breast cancer will directly or indirectly affect you or someone you know. Breast cancer takes a life every 14 minutes. Another woman will receive a life altering diagnosis of breast cancer every 3 minutes. Passing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act would help get to the bottom of what causes breast cancer and how to prevent it. H.R. 2231 authorizes $30 million a year for five years to establish these multi-institutional, multidisciplinary centers. The centers would include institutions with different areas of expertise working together to look at different aspects of the same issue. This bill creates a new mechanism for environmental health research, and provide a unique process by which up to 8 research centers are developed to study environmental factors and their impact on breast cancer. Modeled after the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program, which has been so successful, it would include consumer advocates in the peer review and programmatic review process. This Federal commitment is critical for the overall, national strategy and the long-term research investments needed to discover the environmental causes of breast cancer, so that we can prevent it, treat it more effectively, and cure it. It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. More research needs to be done to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer, which has been understudied in the past. Less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors; however, there is little consensus in the scientific community on how the environment impacts breast cancer. Studies have explored the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields, but in most cases there is no conclusive evidence. Furthermore, there are many other factors that are suspected to play a role but have not been fully studied. These could provide valuable in understanding the causes of breast cancer and could lead to prevention strategies. We must all work together to find a cure for breast cancer. As we work to achieve that goal, we must continue to create comprehensive programs to study the disease, increase awareness and ensure early detection takes place. We must make a commitment to women who have or will be affected by breast cancer. I am proud to support efforts that will help so many of our sisters, daughters, wives and mothers.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor a distinguished constituent of the 20th District of New York; Mr. Lewis Golub. Mr. Golub's tireless contributions to his business, employees, and community are outstanding and have resulted in the formation of a successful company that has benefited many. Over the past 50 years, Lewis Golub has worked vigorously to develop and support the Golub Corporation/Price Chopper Supermarkets, a large and extremely successful supermarket chain in Northern New York. Yet, Mr. Golub does not limit his efforts to his business. As the Regional Vice Chair of the New York State Business Council, an active member of the Board of Directors of the Saratoga Performing Arts Center, the Empire State College, and the Food Marketing Institute, Mr. Golub plays a pivotal role in many other facets of the community, extending himself to the services of his fellow neighbors. In addition, Mr. Golub has received the Humanitarian of the Year Award from the New York Chiefs of Police, the Arthritis Foundation's Accolade for Community Service, and the Community Service Award from the Interfaith Community of Schenectady, New York. These many awards reflect Mr. Golub's strong commitment to his community. He has distinguished himself through his financial support for his community; there are few who possess the same passion. Mr. Golub has received numerous awards including, the United Way's CEO of the Year Award and the John J. O'Connor Excellence in Leadership Award, as well as the American Marketing Association's Marketer of the Year Award, the New York Capital District Business Review's Executive of the Year Award, and the Capital Region Business Hall of Fame Award, among others. The Golub Corporation/Price Chopper Supermarkets remain a sturdy pillar of business in the Upstate Region of New York. Mr. Golub's charitable spirit is evident in every aspect of his life. It is through his tenacious character and generous qualities that the community enjoys the services of Mr. Golub. Mr. Speaker, please join me as I recognize the significant life accomplishments of Mr. Lewis Golub and wish him all the best in his bright future. We can all take a chapter from his life and benefit from his example. My Congressional District is better served through the commitment to excellence Mr. Golub demonstrates and our communities are fortunate to call him a neighbor and friend.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the late John J. Sanvidge, a dedicated and loyal public servant, and one of my outstanding constituents from the 20th District of New York. His professional and personal achievements are numerous and varied, and have positively shaped the lives of many in my District. Throughout his life John worked to protect the people of his community and nation. He courageously defended our country in the European Theatre of WorId War II, while serving in the U.S. Navy. Locally, he was an advocate for the citizens of the 20th District through his service as Commissioner of Public Safety for the city of Troy, and while serving as Director of Civil Defense for Rensselaer County. John also worked to help those less fortunate. For over 50 years, the John J. Sanvidge Funeral Home, Inc., founded by John, has helped countless citizens of Renssealear, Albany, and Saratoga counties cope with some of the most difficult times in their life. He served as chairman of the Rensselaer County Muscular Dystrophy Association Drive and was influential in the first Jerry Lewis Telethon in New York City. John was an active member of his community as a member of the CSEA, Veteran of Foreign Affairs Post 8764, the Tibbits Cadets of Troy and the American Legion. It is my privilege to honor such a dedicated member of my district. The selfless work of individuals like John Sanvidge constitutes the foundation of good citizenship and embodies true American values. The residents of my district have benefited from the efforts and achievements of John J. Sanvidge. I thank him for his contribution to our community and our Nation.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize the marvelous response of the students of Union Vale Middle School in Lagrangeville, New York to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina caused such extensive devastation that has had a profound effect on the entire country. When Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005, as a Category 4 storm, millions of American lives were changed forever. Americans in the Gulf Coast lost their families, homes, business, schools and communities. Intense rains, wind, flooding and tornadoes caused by Hurricane Katrina resulted in immense devastation of the Gulf Coast states. The residents of the affected areas are trying to find a way to rebuild their lives, despite returning to a lack of water, food and shelter. Americans across the nation felt the effects of Hurricane Katrina. To this day, Americans continue to donate money, time and effort to help rebuild this devastated part of the country. States across the country have taken in evacuees and are helping them find shelter and rebuild their lives. Colleges and universities have welcomed students displaced by Katrina to their campuses. Americans have opened their hearts to their fellow citizens. This great relief effort can be seen in the community of students, faculty and parents from Union Vale Middle School in Lagrangeville, New York. Upon learning of the terrible devastation caused by Katrina, Union Vale Middle School set to work raising funds to support the victims. The middle school established a ``Katrina Relief Week'', which included a ``Walk to Higher Ground'' walk-a-thon, bake sale, silent auction with prizes donated by faculty, staff and local businesses, along with a Faculty Benefit Showcase. In all, the community of Union Vale Middle School raised over $26,000. This is a marvelous accomplishment and a heartfelt donation to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. I would like to recognize the Union Vale Middle School community for their remarkable efforts for raising money for the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina. The students, faculty and staff dedicated a great amount of time and money to this cause, demonstrating their concern for and compassion towards their fellow citizens. Union Vale Middle School is an exemplary community whose invaluable dedication to helping our nation deserves our recognition.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for the kind introduction and thank him for his great work at getting this rule out and onto the floor and for his friendship and his hard work on behalf of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I have been on this committee for a number of years since its inception. And every one of these bills comes to the floor, and we have common interests in the bill that we can agree on and common things that we can disagree on. But it is an accumulation of work representative of the process here, a bipartisan, bicameral bill that is not perfect by any means, but gets us significantly closer to the places we all want to be. And I think this is probably the one conference report that does that more than any other that I have been fortunate enough to work on, and it is because, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, it does do something that is important and that has been voted on by this body a number of times, and that is to distribute first responder grants appropriately, threat-based, risk-based, first before we go to minimum standards. Now, we had negotiated, and we had a compromise with our friends in the other body who still have not gotten to the place where they understand that the most efficient way we are going to fund and protect this Nation is to make sure that the funds and the resources are directed to where threats most exist. And they insisted on still a minimum level of funding for every State in this Nation that I think exceeds common sense. But nevertheless, this is the first time we have been able to codify in legislation and will enact in legislation the idea that homeland security is going to be done threat-based, and that is critically important. And it is why this is an important bill. It is the most significant of the homeland security approps bills because it enacts into law what this body has said now for 2 straight years that we ought to be doing. It does a number of other really important things, too. And despite the critics, who we have heard from today, saying that it does not do enough, it does more to improve border security than any other single piece of legislation we have had before us since September the 11th. It does important things on restructuring our capabilities in science and technology, and every year, we have this debate that we are not spending enough money, whether it is for screening devices in airports or ports or other kinds of places or interoperability of communications. The fact of the matter is structurally this bill does more to get us to the place where we actually can have the technology put to use in the field that will ensure that we are able to provide that kind of support for our citizens and our first responders. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, after a very arduous negotiation, the Coast Guard Deepwater program, which is critically important to maintaining our security throughout, is really strengthened here in this bill. Now, we have got a lot of work left to do. There were billions, literally billions of dollars in the pipeline for first-responder grants. And the most important thing that we can do in this body, I think, is provide the proper oversight to make sure that those billions of dollars get to where they need to go and they are spent in a reasonable and responsible manner. This bill does that. I want to salute Chairman Rogers for taking the prudent steps that he has taken here and for really leading us. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). We have worked on a number of things, including this, for quite some time. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago I introduced identical legislation that made homeland security funds, first responder funds threat-based. That legislation, I am happy to say, has since been supported overwhelmingly by the 9/11 Commission, the President, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. We passed an amendment by House vote of 409 to 10 as part of the authorizing language for Department of Homeland Security. Simply, what this is, and this is not a geographic vote, this is not a political-philosophical vote, it simply says the Department of Homeland Secretary and the Secretary of that Department ought to have the resources and ought to have the flexibility to direct Federal resources where they belong, to direct Federal resources where the threats exist. So if it is in the subway systems or the rail systems or the aviation system or some other system that the threat actually exists, the Secretary will have the capacity and the tools to indeed take all of the resources that we have as a Nation to protect ourselves. We owe it to our constituents. It is the highest order of duty here in this body. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have worked on this now for a number of years, and I am thrilled we are offering it here. My suspicion is it is going to be accepted here and made part of the PATRIOT Act. The reason it is part of the PATRIOT Act is the original formula, the current formula that we operate under, was part of the original PATRIOT Act bill that was passed. At that time, we could not have anticipated all of the things we now know to be true as a body. This is rectifying something that was an oversight in the original PATRIOT Act bill. I strongly support that, as I do this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong, strong support of this very important bill. It is important in so many ways because it meets so many of the needs of our Nation, and it represents every year one of the significant milestones of the session. It represents that more so this year than almost any other. And in saying that, I want to recognize the full committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and congratulate them on what I think is not a small point, and that is that we will, as of the passing of this bill, have completed the work of the Committee on Appropriations initially here in this body. That is important to the American people because it ensures for them, in an organized and reasonable manner, some transparency in order for us to really understand what the priorities are going to be. And as we go forward and focus more in conference and have discussions and debates with the other body about what the funding priorities are to be, the fact that we have gotten our work out of the way at this juncture is very important. Secondly, I want to specifically recognize the chairman of the full committee for fulfilling a commitment to the American people to do something about the deficit. This appropriation process recognizes that we needed to symbolically, and maybe otherwise, make real commitments to ourselves and to the people of this Nation to reduce our spending habits. And in this process we have made that strong statement, or will have made that strong statement in the body. Now, I also want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and my neighbor, the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their work on this bill and the staffs of the committee for the great work they have done on this bill. This particular bill represented a unique challenge because for the first time the bill includes funding for highway transit, aviation and Amtrak, as well as the Department of the Treasury, IRS enforcement, and Housing and Urban Development. In addition, the bill also provides funding for the District of Columbia. The needs of all of these competing programs are staggering, and the chairman and the ranking member really have done a noble job, as well as the staffs on both sides of the aisle having done a really noble job of trying to listen to the needs of all Members. Let us talk about what this bill accomplishes. The bill increases highway spending and funding for the FAA to help make our roads and skies safer. I am especially pleased at the commitment in this bill for airport improvement, $3.6 billion and $104 million for essential air services. I come from the 32nd largest rural district in the Nation. This is a key, key component. The bill also includes funding to hire and train 595 new air traffic controllers. I hope to avert some potential problems that we may have in that human resources area. In terms of housing needs, the bill provides funding for section 8 vouchers and project-based rental assistance. Importantly, this bill rejects an administration proposal to undermine the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program. CDBG is critical to our local communities, and this bill preserves the program in its current state. I also want to highlight the contributions this bill makes in the war against drugs by providing funding to the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the National Antidrug Media Campaign. The work achieved by the Media Campaign, in conjunction with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, is incredible and greatly contributes to our efforts to keep kids from experimenting with drugs. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for allowing me to speak. This bill is not perfect. No bill ever is. No appropriation bill ever is. It moves the process along. In putting this bill together, I know the chairman faced a $3 billion shortage in transportation guarantees and overall a $1 billion shortage with the inclusion of all these additional programs. The gentleman has met that challenge in fulfilling some basic structural needs to move it along, and he has met many other needs; and I wanted to congratulate the chairman. On Amtrak, let me say this. I recognize there are negotiations and decisions to be made. We need to move it further. We need to begin the process of reforming Amtrak. We need to get realistic, or more realistic, about what that Federal subsidy needs to be. But in this bill the fact that the chairman has targeted 80 percent of ridership is a pretty good foundation piece, and I really respect the decisions the chairman had to make and how he made them. For my constituents, and those of us on the lines that are most dependent upon Amtrak use, this bill ensures, as these negotiations go forward, that the essential services we need will be maintained. But that is not good enough, Mr. Chairman. We have to make sure that in going forward, we are able to bring about changes and reforms in Amtrak, changes that have been talked about for more than a decade. And to Mr. Gunn at Amtrak, and those people who run Amtrak, as one who has worked with him in the past, I am deeply, deeply disappointed in their failure thus far, frankly, of bringing about meaningful proposals, other than asking for more money. It puts those of us who are Amtrak allies in a distinctly disadvantaged position. Because other than fighting over money, we do not ensure any strengthening of the system, or any increase in the vibrancy of the system. I am going to vote for and support this bill. I probably will end up supporting some other amendments that will help move the Amtrak debates further along. But we cannot get to the point that we need to unless the people who are running the system get more interactive with us and propose more of the changes that we need in order to finally resolve the longstanding problems of that system. Again, Mr. Chairman, our chairman has done a noble and terrific job. His staff has as well, as has the staff of the other side. And the leadership on the other side, I want to congratulate them for that and vow that we will continue to work together to make improvements where we can.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be extended to the entire paragraph.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment, and I will acknowledge up front I do it rather reluctantly, because I am a huge proponent of the national rail system and recognize up front the need for some subsidization, fair and responsible and reasonable subsidization, as we do in other transportation routes; and a lot of speakers have addressed that issue and that point. But just as the last speaker pointed out the inefficiencies in the system, in the process both at Amtrak and, frankly, how the Federal Government has provided oversight, I think that passage of this amendment represents a premature move to acceptance of those inefficiencies at a point, a critical point, in negotiations that we cannot do that. Facts are facts, and we have been asking for Amtrak to reform itself for a number of years. We have not gotten much of a response. In fact, we have gotten resistance. And the inefficiencies in the system continue to atrophy downward. How it really impacts on people, in my district, just outside the northeast corridor, not part of the corridor, because the tracks are not owned by Amtrak, there is a continued deterioration; and there is no Amtrak plan, no Amtrak plan to resolve those issues, putting at risk an awful lot of people. I know what the chairman is trying to accomplish in this particular piece of legislation is force Amtrak back to the table to talk about what needs to be maintained, what is critical infrastructure, what are critical lines of connection that have to be in this; and if we simply just say we are going to go on with business as usual, we continue to promote the atrophy within the system. Now, I think at some point in this process, many of these lines that are eliminated in this particular bill are reinstated before this bill becomes law. But we ought not to do it just willy-nilly; we ought not to just give it away. We need to force some people to make some tough decisions. We need to force some people to live by their commitments of the past, which they have not thus far. I think this is one of the few pieces of leverage that the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and this subcommittee will have as we continue to try to find a way to get to the answers. Now, we have gone from zero to now $1.2 billion in this bill. That is a real commitment to Amtrak. It is still, I would suggest, short of where we need to end up. But let us not just end up there by dealing away those funds; let us end up there by making sure that we bring efficiencies to the system.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full and strong support of this amendment. I agree with the comments of colleagues in support of this amendment. I know that our great chairman is working very diligently and hard to make sure that what I consider to be a mistake does not indeed happen. I think we all need to focus on a number of points. One of those points is this was decided by somebody at OMB in an effort to do a good thing, which was try to save some money; but it was not well-thought-out. It overturns the intent of this body and the intent of the other body a couple of years ago. We ought not let that process continue. This is not just about New Yorkers. This is about all of us. This is about the commitments we make. There were 40,000 volunteers who went to the site. They were from all over the Nation. We need to honor that commitment.

Mr. SWEENEY

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

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago we passed on the floor here an amendment banning the slaughter of wild horses that had been sneaked into the omnibus bill by a substantial bipartisan vote. This amendment I offer today is a supplement to that amendment, and one that we have sought a vote on, an up-or-down vote, for several years in this body. For that reason in particular, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for affording us this opportunity. The amendment essentially would end the use of taxpayer dollars to enable and subsidize foreign enterprises, largely operating in opposition to the vast opinion and support of United States citizens, and in fact the majority of States have outlawed the slaughter of horses for human consumption; and yet this process continues on. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of misinformation spread about this issue. The opposition will say this amendment will lead to an increase in the abuse of horses, or horses running wild in our streets. Such statements are not true, and I want to offer some facts. First of all, each year 65,000 horses are slaughtered in this country for human consumption in Europe and in Asia, not here, where they are sold as a delicacy. Another 30,000 are trucked to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. Misstatement number one, that slaughter is the same as humane euthanasia, it is not, Mr. Chairman. Slaughter is not the same as humane euthanasia administered by a veterinarian. Euthanasia of horses is administered by lethal injection, whereas slaughter is administered by unskilled, untrained workers using the captive bolt. Many times this is administered improperly, causing unnecessary pain and suffering before death, and that is after these horses have been transported in excess of 1,000 miles in the most inhumane conditions perceived. Misstatement number two, that if this legislation is successful, we will cause an overpopulation of horses. Passage of this amendment will not cause an overpopulation of horses, since each year the numbers are this, about 690,000 horses die in the U.S., many of which are euthanized by licensed veterinarians. Slaughter represents only 1 percent of the horses that die each year, and this would not result in overpopulation of horses as some have suggested. Mr. Chairman, it is simply this: Americans do not profit from slaughtering horses. Horses are not bred in the United States for that purpose. This is an export-driven market. Foreigners eat our horses and foreign companies make money off the sale of the meat. This amendment simply says that the use of American taxpayer dollars to pay for the salaries and the work of USDA inspectors ought to stop, and those resources ought to be committed to making sure the food supply and the food chain here in this country are fully protected. Let us stop this practice, a practice that flies in the face of generations of precedent here in Congress and strong opposition by the American public. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me quickly respond to some of the information that has been put out there. First of all, on the cost end of it, CBO said already this is a cost- neutral proposition. In fact, it is my contention that it will give the USDA extra resources to do the job of protecting the American food chain. Secondly, we talked about the failure of a lack of a hearing. We looked for a hearing for 2 years. That necessitated bringing this legislation. Finally, if we are simply going to get into a debate over which organizations support it, there are vastly more organizations, some of the most preeminent experts in the horse industry who support this legislation, including Congress's top veterinarian, Senator Ensign, who is introducing a counterpart bill in the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me quickly answer my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) by saying 2 things. When Ferdinand, the great horse champion, was sold for slaughter, he was marketed as ``eating an American champion.'' There is a distinction there. Number two, I would ask how many zebras, how many cows do we know the names of? We know the names of many horses, and the fact is horses are not raised in this Nation for human consumption. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just simply say, before I recognize, that the gentleman raises some interesting points; and I would hope that the authorizing committee could go to hearings in the near future. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I recognize my final speaker to close, Mr. Chairman, let me just point out if it is about the bottom line, it is about making sure USDA inspectors inspect the American food chain and not foreign food chains. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.