Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize horse racing's most inspirational figure, Barbaro. In his short-lived life, Barbaro quickly became one of the sport's most respected and beloved champions. Foaled on April 29, 2003, this American thoroughbred racehorse warmed his way into the hearts of many Americans with his success on the track and his courage through injury. Barbaro knew nothing but success in his racing career, winning his first six races and earning winnings of over $2 million. Yet despite his undefeated record through his first five starts, his achievements went largely unnoticed until May 6, 2006. On that day, his victory at the Kentucky Derby earned him the respect of horse racing fans nationwide. Barbaro entered the race with odds of 6 to 1. After stumbling at the start, Barbaro moved easily to the front when the leading horses tired at the five-sixteenths pole and he glided through the stretch to win in a fast time of 2 minutes, 1.36 seconds. Barbaro's final quarter-mile run of 24 and one fifth seconds was the fastest since Secretariat's in 1973, and his victory margin of 6\1/2\ lengths was the longest since Triple Crown winner Assault won the Derby by eight in 1946. As the crowd celebrated and looked on the horse with amazement, jockey Edgar Prado rode Barbaro into the winner's circle, pumping his fists at 108,065 cheering fans, the second largest crowd in Derby history. A new hero had been born as Barbaro became just the sixth undefeated winner in the Derby's 132 year history. His impressive performance under the Twin Spires at Churchill Downs inspired diehard racing fans and casual observers alike. Heading into The Preakness as the heavy favorite, Barbaro was thought by many to have the best chance of becoming the first Triple Crown winner since 1978. As fate would have it, Barbaro was unable to finish the race due to what would become a fatal injury. Barbaro shocked spectators by breaking through the starting gate just before the race began. After being reloaded, he tore away from the gate, determined not to let his previous jumpstart stand in the way of victory. But just seconds into the race, Barbaro broke down in his right hind leg and was prudently pulled up by Prado. Barbaro fans would soon learn that he had fractured three bones in and around the ankle of his right hind leg, making it impossible for him to race ever again. Nevertheless, Barbaro's terrifying breakdown on national television would not be his legacy. Instead, the story of this great horse became a tale of unyielding love and determination that captured the attention of millions across the country. The unprecedented level of care and advanced medical treatment offered by Barbaro's owners, Roy and Gretchen Jackson, and his medical team were displayed on network news shows and national magazines. Get-well cards and letters from around the world were sent to him throughout his struggle to recover. Despite receiving the best possible care and an outpouring of public affection, Barbaro's eight month battle for life was characterized by significant progress followed by substantial setbacks. On January 29, 2007, Roy and Gretchen Jackson came to the conclusion with Barbaro's veterinarian, Dr. Dean W. Richardson, that Barbaro was in too much pain and that it was no longer possible for Barbaro to make the miracle recovery everyone was hoping for. Barbaro's fight for life demonstrated unique courage and remarkable spirit that captured the hearts of America. Millions of people embraced this amazing racehorse, followed his struggle, and waited for his miracle recovery. We all hoped and prayed for a happy ending to this fairy tale story but there would be no such ending. Barbaro's story is one of great perseverance and great integrity that was shown day in and day out by him, his owners, and his caregivers. Barbaro proved that greatness is not only achieved on the racetrack but through a willingness and determination to overcome all obstacles life may present. This son of Dynaformer out of Carson City mare La Ville Rouge gave us a lifetime of memories to be proud of, and he will be remembered in the annals of horse racing for all of history.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I believe that the American people welcome this debate on Iraq, certainly one of the most important issues facing the American people, and I believe we will all benefit from open, constructive, and sincere debate. It goes without saying that no one Member of Congress or political party has a clear-cut solution to the complex problems our Nation faces in Iraq. I expect that every Member of Congress will share their thoughts on whether we should approve or disapprove this 100-word resolution; and like every other Member of Congress, I offer and convey my respect, gratitude and thanks for the exemplary service and heart-rendering sacrifice made by our young men and women in the military. As so many have said, they have performed in an exemplary way, and they have accomplished every task we have asked them to do. I have had the great privilege of representing Ft. Campbell, home of the 101st Airborne Division and the 5th Special Forces group who have served many times in Iraq. Throughout this debate many speakers have quoted generals and other experts who have disagreed emphatically with many aspects of the military decisions and strategic decisions about Iraq. We know there have been and continue to be strong disagreements among those who have been intimately involved in this issue. We have as a Nation endured so much. As has been said, over 3,000 American soldiers have died, and 23,417 have been wounded during the past 4 years in Iraq. While I understand the arguments of those who support this resolution, I would like to briefly explain why I believe we should vote against this resolution. Neither President Bush, Speaker Pelosi or any Member of Congress will have as much opportunity to maximize the possibility of success in Iraq as our new military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. He is responsible, with the men and women serving, for implementing the increased security for Baghdad. He was confirmed for this new responsibility by a vote of 81-0 in the U.S. Senate on January 26, 2007, a mere 20 days ago. At his confirmation hearing, among other statements, General Petraeus said, ``Some of the members of this committee have observed that there is no military solution to the problem of Iraq.'' And he said, ``They are correct.'' Ultimate success in Iraq will be determined by actions in the Iraqi political and economic arenas on central issues as governance, the amount of power devolved to the provinces, the distribution of oil revenue, national reconciliation, and resolution of sectarian differences. And then he went on to say, and this is key, It is, however, exceedingly difficult for the Iraqi Government to come to grips with the tough issues it must resolve while mere survival is the primary concern of so many in Iraq's capital. For this reason, military action to improve security, while not wholly sufficient to solve Iraq's problems, is certainly necessary, and that is why additional U.S. and Iraqi forces are needed in Baghdad. They do have a role. General Petraeus and our military have been asked to implement this additional security. He was confirmed to do this, as I said, just 20 days ago. Are we going to turn our backs and abandon General Petraeus and his soldiers this early? Are we going to say ``no'' without an adequate opportunity for the new strategy to work? In truth, no one can predict the impact of a failed Iraqi state on regional stability, the international economy, the global war on terror, American security, stability in the Middle East and the lives of the Iraqi people. Twenty days is simply not enough time. I would also like to remind the Members that on page 23 of the Iraq Study Group it says quite clearly, ``We could support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad,'' and that is what we are trying to do. In my view, it is premature to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, only 20 days after confirming a new general to go to Iraq to provide additional security in Baghdad so that the Iraqi Government will have a reasonable opportunity to succeed

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, all of us join in wishing our condolences to Charlie's wife Gloria and his entire family. Those of us who were elected in 1994 and had the opportunity to know Charlie, to work with Charlie, and for me personally I had the opportunity to sit next to him on the Energy and Commerce Committee for about 8 years, Charlie was many things. He was a soldier in Vietnam, he was a businessman, he was a dentist, he was a great United States Congressman. He also was a Sunday school teacher at Trinity on the Hill Methodist Church in Augusta, Georgia. And I know that that church meant a lot to him because he is asking for donations to that church as a memorial. Recently I attended a church service in a Methodist church in Kentucky, and the title of the sermon was ``You Can't Make a Success of Life Without Making a Gift of It.'' And when I think of Charlie Norwood, that is really what I think about: He made a gift of his life. We will miss him. He has made a tremendous impact on all of us. We wish his family the very best.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, of course this subject matter is very important, the Congressional Pension Accountability Act; and I just went up to the desk and asked for a copy of the bill that we will be debating. And I was told that they did not have a copy. The Speaker has said that there are copies available for Members, and I would like to know where the copies are and how many copies are available for the Members.

Mr. WHITFIELD. When will copies be made available for us?

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of this House the end of an era in the Kentucky General Assembly. In January, 2007, the longest serving member of the Kentucky General Assembly, Representative James Bruce will retire after having 42 years in the Kentucky House of Representatives. I have known Representative Bruce for most of my life, and he taught me the ropes of government and politics early on when I served with him for one term in the Kentucky House from 1974-1975. Upon arriving in Frankfort, I learned quickly that Representative Bruce was one of the most effective legislators in Kentucky. He had the respect and admiration of his colleagues both Democrat and Republican, and when he told you something you could count on it. Many Governors have relied on Representative Bruce to get their agendas through the legislature. Back home in the 9th District, he was legendary as someone who seldom if ever had an opponent during an election year, and who was faithful in delivering to his district. Much of the progress in agriculture, infrastructure, and economic development in Representative Bruce's district is in large part attributable to his skill, seniority, and effectiveness in Frankfort. I am confident that if you asked Representative Bruce about his success he would attribute it to his lovely wife Janie who has been at his side for nearly every trip between Hopkinsville and Frankfort and whom many have said that with Jim and Janie we had two for one. Mr. Speaker, 2007 will mark the end of an era in the Kentucky General Assembly and the 9th House District will miss the presence of Representative James E. Bruce. He leaves large shoes behind to fill.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of legislation I introduced today to create a Pilot Program to extend the summer water level of Lake Barkley, KY, until after Labor Day. Barkley Dam impounds the Cumberland River near Grand Rivers, KY, creating Lake Barkley, which was taken over by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1966. In order to create this body of water, communities were flooded in the 1960s. Today, people still talk about Eddyville and ``Old Eddyville'', as well as Kuttawa and ``Old Kuttawa''. The ``Old'' areas were the portions of the cities that were left above the water after the areas were flooded. The present day cities were created after the lake was formed. Old foundations, streets, and highways, including U.S. Highways 68 and 62, are still visible in shallow water areas. The Illinois Central Railroad was also relocated and can also still be seen underwater from lowflying planes above. One mile above the dam is a canal connecting Lake Barkley with Kentucky Lake, forming one of the greatest freshwater recreational complexes in the country. The lakes run parallel for more than 50 miles with Land Between the Lakes recreational area located between them. This site has been used for numerous fishing tournaments and other outdoor events, which have helped to create an economic boon for the Lake Barkley area. Lake Barkley is 134 miles long with over 1,000 miles of shoreline. The lake's water levels fluctuate from summer to winter ``pool levels'' for flood control purposes. During the ``summer pool'' months, recreation and wildlife thrive at the lake. However, the draw down for ``winter pool'' begins in early July and this becomes extremely dangerous for boaters as tree stumps, old road beds, and other obstructions have caused fatal boating accidents. In addition, the ``winter pool'' level has become a serious concern in the past few years due to the prolonged siltation, which has made the lake even shallower since its creation. This pilot program will allow us to test under normal weather conditions what an extended summer pool lake level would mean to enhanced boating safety, recreation, navigation, fishing, and tourism activities, while also enabling us to gauge the economic impact of longer and higher water levels. I believe that these new water levels will make the lake safer for boaters and have a positive impact on the wildlife and the overall lake environment. To that end, this pilot program will ensure the safety of residents and visitors to Lake Barkley, KY, and improve recreation, navigation, and the economic vitality of the lake's region.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the Rules Committee for bringing this rule to the floor on this important issue. I might say that the first legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress to try to curtail the slaughter of American horses for human consumption was back in the mid-1970s. And year after year after year after year, the Ag Committee refused to take any action. They never had a hearing. They did everything that they could do to defeat this bill and to make sure that it never saw the light of day. Well, today we have the opportunity to vote on this bill to have a free and open discussion about the importance of this bill and to make the American people recognize and realize that there are only three slaughter plants in the U.S. operating where the horses are being slaughtered for human consumption. Every one of them is owned by foreign interests, by the Belgians, by the Dutch and by the French. All of the meat is exported to Europe. Now, the Fort Worth newspaper today had an editorial opposed to this bill and what they said reflects the inaccuracy about this bill. They talked about how pet food is made from horse meat. The truth of the matter is, the pet food association has not used horse meat for 12 years. That is just one of the inaccuracies. Horse slaughter is about a process. There are groups of killer buyers around America who will obtain horses by any means possible, by theft, by misrepresentation. Skye Dutcher, a young girl from New York, came to Washington just yesterday to tell us the story about on her 12th birthday her horse was stolen from her family's farm. A fellow took it to a killer buyer, and he received $150. The killer buyer took it to the auction, and the horse was taken to slaughter. Judy Taylor, in my State of Kentucky, had two Appaloosas, and she had cancer. She gave them to a friend who said, I will take care of them. That friend sold them to a killer buyer. The killer buyer took them to Beltex in Fort Worth, Texas, where they were slaughtered. So the nasty part of this business is that so many horses are being obtained illegally, and I know of very few industries in America today where the products that they are using are obtained illegally. We hear a lot about these unwanted horses and what are we going to do with 90,000 horses that have not been slaughtered. I would say to you that 12 years ago 300,000 horses were slaughtered each year. Today, that number is down to 87,000 because the demand is going down. With that kind of a drastic reduction, you would think there are a lot of unwanted horses running around the country. Yet there is not one study anywhere that indicates that there is an abundance of horses. In fact, as I said, most of the horses that are being slaughtered are wanted. The owners would love to have them back, but because of this process, this is what is happening. The State of Texas had a law on its books that made it illegal to use horse meat for human consumption, to buy it or sell it or transport it. They tried to shut down the slaughterhouses in Texas. The prosecutors were getting ready to go to court, and the foreign owners filed a lawsuit in Federal court. They won that lawsuit because the Federal judge said this is about interstate commerce and the State of Texas will be impeding interstate commerce by trying to shut these slaughterhouses down. So the only thing that we can do is if it is going to be changed, Congress has to do it. That is what this bill is about today. H.R. 503 is on the floor because Congress wants to take action. Every poll that has been taken on this issue, the American people support the prohibition of slaughtering horses. Horses have never been a part of the food chain. They are not like cattle. They are not like pigs. They are not like goats. Those animals are raised for slaughter; and when you take it to auction, you know where it is going to end up. That is not the case with horses. I think that this is going to be quite an interesting debate, a worthwhile debate; and I want to thank the Rules Committee for giving us this opportunity today.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this bill certainly does not prevent individual owners from slaughtering a horse and eating the horse if they want to. I think that this amendment is unnecessary. It would defeat the purpose of the bill. All the correspondence we have had with Indian tribes indicates that they do not eat horse meat. Horses have not been a part of the food chain in America. I would urge the defeat of the amendment and passage of H.R. 503. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, does he have the right to close or do I have the right to close?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. I would also submit for the Record a letter that we have from Chief Arvol of the Lakota Nation, and he wrote a very long letter in opposition to this amendment. He says: ``I am writing to ask for your support in co-sponsoring the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act and for our tribe.'' Dear Representative: My name is Chief Arvol Looking Horse of the Lakota, Dakota, Nakota Nation. I am also known as ``Sung Wakan'' (Horse Man). My position with my People is the 19th Generation Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Bundle. I am the spiritual leader for our Nation. It has been recorded in ancient petroglyphs and in our oral stories that the horse nation was around our people long before the Spaniards brought the other relative of the horse nation to this land. These ancient horses were much smaller in size and not so much in numbers, to a point of extinction. With this ancient Bundle, almost 2,000 years old, existed a horse ceremony acknowledging the horse nation in respect to their wise and gentle spirit, as they offered a gift of healing for our own human spirit. My work has involved many efforts in bringing awareness to the importance to all life upon Mother Earth, including Mother Earth herself so that all life may live in Peace. I was raised with the understanding that all forms of life have their own meaning of importance and should not be taken for granted. To ignore and not to try to learn this precious truth of all living beings to live in Peace with us as humans of power and decisions, will affect the lives of our own children in their health of body mind and spirit. We need to teach all children to look at all life as sacred. The Horse Nation is an important spirit being. The Nation deserves the protection and awareness of what we humans can offer. They have saved, assisted, and given of themselves for all humans throughout history. Whether it was being ridden in battles, or in traveling, and most recently discovered by therapists through friendship, they can give healing to our troubled spirits. The Native Nations always understood these gifts and that was why we had our horse dance ceremony. This awareness of the horse's gifts to humans has transformed into a strong respect. This awareness has been gathering People across the country to protect this fine spirit from a very negative attack on their health and existence, by unconscious disrespectful humans in the name of greed. A horse can feel impending trauma in their environment. Yet, horses trust humans and so are being led to slaughter. This is not a way of respecting life that children need to learn, as we adults having positions as role models and leaders in our communities. This energy, as we understand these actions to be, will indeed backfire, if people do not educate themselves about the importance of the different spiritual roles of all life forms. Some animal nations, indeed, give themselves for food. They actually know their purpose in the human's food chain, as long as humans understand this with respect. We should understand the Horse Nation has earned the right to live in Peace for what they have contributed to all our lives throughout history. I am writing to ask for your support in cosponsoring the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. The AHSPA (H.R. 857) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative John Sweeney (R-NY) who is chair of the Congressional Horse Caucus and Congressman John Spratt (D- SC). A similar bill will soon be before the U.S. Senate. Despite the passage of the Wild-Free Roaming Wild Horses and Burros Act of 1971 which was enacted to protect the wild horse from slaughter, hundreds, perhaps thousands, continue to be slaughtered each year. The Bureau of Land Management removed too many wild horses from their ranges resulting in ongoing sales to the slaughterhouses. If you wish to learn more about these activities, please contact Chris Heyde of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation. In a Sacred Hoop of life, where there is no ending and no beginning! Thank you for your attention to this effort. Mitakuye Oyasin (All my relations), Chief Arvol Looking Horse, 19th Generation Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe. Madam Chairman, the purpose of H.R. 503 has never been to dictate to other cultures what they can and cannot eat. The purpose of H.R. 503 is simply to prohibit the French, the Belgians, the Dutch from offering slaughterhouses in America, taking our horses, many of which are stolen, obtained by misrepresentation, and shipping the meat to France, Belgium, and Japan. So this amendment would do one thing. It would make the bill ineffective. It would defeat the bill in its entirety. And so I would urge the Members to oppose this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) in opposition.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I must say I am shocked that the gentleman would want to get the government involved in this kind of an issue. These are private property rights people who are out there voluntarily providing their property, their money to take care of these unwanted horses. And one of the reasons we opposed this amendment, you talk about sufficient horse sanctuaries. We know who would be defining ``sufficient.'' The Department of Agriculture, who must work with your committee to get anything that they want on the farm bill or anything else; so you would be dictating what is sufficient, and we know that there would never be enough sanctuaries sufficient to meet your demands. So I would say once again we do not have to speculate about unwanted horses in the future. We know for a fact that unwanted horses is not a problem, as we have gone from 300,000 to 90,000 a year. No one has complained about it. No study has shown it. UC Davis in their study in California indicated that there have not been any additional increases of unwanted horses. So I would urge every Member to oppose this amendment, which is designed to defeat this bill. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Talking about an amendment to create a problem that is not there, this is a perfect example of that. We have all of these organizations around the country who are voluntarily spending their time and money to provide a safe haven for horses, and this amendment basically is a killer amendment to defeat H.R. 503. I would point out once again that each year the number of horses that have been slaughtered has been going down. We have gone from 300,000 down to 90,000. There is no evidence that society has had any problem in absorbing these horses. And I would also remind the gentleman many of these horses are stolen; so they are not unwanted horses. There is a need for them. So we know for a fact that the only purpose of any of these amendments is to make this bill ineffective, to kill this bill. I am delighted that we are on the floor and have an opportunity to debate this, and I would urge every Member to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) to respond.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I would say this: The State of Texas tried to close these slaughter houses down for many years. Officials there did. A lawsuit was filed by the slaughter houses. Remember, they are foreign-owned, Belgian, Dutch and French. In that lawsuit, the slaughter houses owned by the foreign companies won that lawsuit because the Federal judge said that this is an interstate commerce issue; and there is Federal preemption involved; and if you are going to shut down slaughter houses in operation in interstate commerce, then the U.S. Congress has to act. Now this bill came before the Energy and Commerce Committee because of the lack of action on the Ag Committee for many years. They never wanted it to see the light of day. I would urge Members to vote for H.R. 503. As I have said before, the unwanted horse argument is not a real argument because horses being slaughtered are not unwanted. To think that we would have the responsibility of reimbursing owners who are overbreeding, who have the responsibility to take care of their own horses, they make it appear that the government has that responsibility. Owners have their own responsibility. Private property rights, this bill protects private property rights. Because of the number of horses being stolen, we are protecting those private property rights. This bill allows an owner, a rancher or farmer who owns a horse to do whatever he wants to with the horse. He can shoot it or slaughter it and eat it himself. We simply are shutting down an illicit, secretive business, and that is what this bill is all about.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. WHITFIELD. A parliamentary inquiry. Could you explain the remaining time that is available.

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walter Jones.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Who has the right to close?