Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Hopkinsville Community College. Learning does not end at high school and whether you are 22 or 92, learning is lifelong. Today, I want to bring to the attention of this House that Hopkinsville Community College in western Kentucky proudly celebrates 40 years of higher education to the citizens of Christian County and surrounding communities in the First Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, we need to make it easier for Americans to receive necessary training, to earn a degree, or to take specialized courses that meet the demands of today's job market and help our fellow citizens achieve their full potential. Community colleges like Hopkinsville Community College are an essential part of that effort. Hopkinsville Community College bridges the gap between people's lives as they are and their lives as they want them to be. Flexibility and courses tailored to individual goals are characteristic of this exceptional community college. Hopkinsville Community College has been a significant contributor to the economic growth and vitality of Hopkinsville and Christian County. The state of the art training and technology center tailors course work to meet the demands of high tech industry and specialized training. Hopkinsville Community College also offers tremendous outreach to first generation college students through its Upward Bound/Trio Programs highlighting the flexibility and opportunity that community colleges provide to both traditional and nontraditional students. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that President Bush has proposed in his 2006 budget providing $125 million to promote dual-enrollment programs, so that high school students can take college level courses and receive both high school and post-secondary credit. This new initiative would provide incentives to states so that high school students, particularly low-income and minority high school students, have a greater chance to receive a college education. Hopkinsville Community College has also partnered with Murray State University to open a campus in Hopkinsville that offers transferable college coursework that will count towards a four year degree. All of these efforts provide convenience, affordability, and flexibility to more of our citizens. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, our community, our state and our Nation are better because of the educational opportunities offered by our community colleges. Hopkinsville Community College is proudly celebrating Forty Years of higher education service and it is my honor to bring their accomplishments before this House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize nominees for the Kentucky New Era/Rotary Academic All Star Team from the Pennyroyal region in western Kentucky. The Academic All-Star program's purpose is to recognize top academic scholars and performers. Students from Caldwell, Christian, Trigg and Todd Counties of Kentucky were nominated based on their academic performance in seven disciplines: English, foreign language, journalism, mathematics, science, social studies and the creative and performing arts. The students judged on their core academic score, the curriculum of the student, their grade point average, academic honors earned, unique accomplishments and achievements, extracurricular activities (both community based and school-related), employment history, and an autobiographical essay. Mr. Speaker, education is the foundation upon which we reach our human potential. Students in my District are developing their talents, furthering their education and pursuing their aspirations in life through programs like the Academic All-Star program. Encouragement and recognition develop confidence and achievement among young Americans-- the future leaders of our country. The following students have been nominated for their academic excellence: Griffin Blane, Gregory Kyle Rader, Ralph King Anderson IV, Kody Douglas Carpenter, Dianne Lisette Rousseau, Lauren Whitney Scott, Jennifer Renea Fowler, Samantha Joy White, Chad Darrel Brown, Casey Jo Calhoun, Bryan Hill, David Clayton Blake, Stephanie Leigh Huntsman, Danielle Diane Brown. Matthew Wyn Lewis, Kristin Averitt Dickinson, Brittany Nichole Goodenough, Haylee Laura Lynne Ortiz, Drew Martin Swain, Sarah Christine Wilson, Marianne Wynn Lassiter, Amy Beth Shemwell, Brandon Bowron, Jerika Nashea Wilson, Melissa Nail, Kathryn Elizabeth Gill, Jonathan Christopher Bass, Zachary Daniel Ferguson, Erika Elaine MacMillan. Ryan David Mullen, Andrew Christian Chiles, Barry Eli Knoblock, Paul Thomas Latham, Joshua Allen Fitzhugh, Sarah Christine Wilson, William Matthew Suiter, Amy Nicole Adams, Norman Bradley Fox, Juliana Elyse Patterson, Robert Kyle Whitaker, Pretesh Parmar, Nicholas Pickford Thompson, Dustin Glynn Kostalek, Ann Marie Crabtree, Kellye Lynn Smiley, Meera Ramesh Patel, John Hayes Laster, Emily Scott, Sarah Beth Vied, Alicia Lynn Morris, Ashley Chewning, Brittany S. Hurt, Brittnee Collins, Chelsea Barnett, Corrinna M. Kinnard, Janelle Nichol Gilmer, Megan Gray, Sam Mitchell. Sherry Cheatham, Wesley Croom, Bree Raquel Hokulani Goodwin, Brooke Davies, Elizabeth Settle, Emily Beatty, Kate Milani, Laura Beth Baggett, Morgan C. Murray, Sarah C. Hazelmyer, Shelley L. Traylor, Taylor Queen, Wendy A. Johnson, Andrew Landreth, Chelsea Musselman, Jacob Kyle Langston, Jonathan A. Chavez, Megan Jones. Melissa Starks, Molly Ware Stuard, Nadeem Ramzi Haroun, Rachel Brown, Sarah Elaine Howell, Sarah Elizabeth Fields, Chelsea Rae Prince, Chris Kirkman, Erin Hamilton Oakley, George W. Barnes, Helen G. Crenshaw, Hunter Carroll, John Paul Bointnott, Kalleb Anderson Greene, Kelsey Fish, Lindsay Elizabeth Gray, Shane Veteto. Mr. Speaker, these students embody the spirit, commitment and sacrifice that we all should strive for in our daily lives. I am proud to represent them in my District. I extend my thanks to these students for their efforts, and I am proud to bring their accomplishments to the attention of this House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Dr. Russell King Heltsley of Hopkinsville, KY, for his contributions to his community, church and family. Dr. Heltsley passed away on December 13, 2004. Dr. Heltsley was a founder of the Hopkinsville, Kentucky Crime Stoppers, a member of the Lions Club and served on the board of directors for the Christian County Health Department. Dr. Heltsley was born on January 26, 1933. He was the son of the late King and Nola Withers Heltsley. Dr. Heltsley served Hopkinsville as an optometrist for more than 40 years. He successfully owned and operated Heltsley Eye Care. In addition, Dr. Heltsley served his country in the United States Army as a First Lieutenant. Dr. Russell Heltsley was a loving husband, father and grandfather. He was known for his dedication to his family. I appreciate this opportunity to add his eulogy to the Congressional Record of the 109th Congress. For Every Remembrance of Russell Philippians 4: 8-9; Philippians 1:3-5 December 16, 2004. Fredrick Buechner, preacher and writer, wrote a book back in 1984 entitled, A Room Called Remember. In Chapter 1, last page, he makes an insightful statement. ``Remember him who himself remembers us as he promised to remember the thief who died beside him. To have faith is to remember and wait, and to wait in hope is to have what we hope for already begin to come true in us through our hoping.'' We are coming up on the 4th Sunday in Advent, 2004. It is the season for remembering and hoping. It is a time of remembering and waiting. It is a season of hope. In the Epistle lessons from Philippians just read, the missionary apostle says to his fellow Christians: ``I thank my God in all my remembrance of you all, making my prayer with joy, thankful for your partnership in the gospel . . .'' As members of the community of faith, each of us has our own remembrances of Dr. Russell Heltsley. Helen, you will remember the time you had Russell over to your parents' home when you were dating. Thinking you had prepared the delicious meal, seeing only your mother in the kitchen upon his arrival, gave him a lot of concern. Later, he admitted to you, ``It bothered me a lot.'' You will remember Russell coming home from the hospital following your surgery, and eating the food you cooked before entering the hospital, and hearing him tell me he was cooking for you. I thought that sounded strange and you confirmed later that all Russell was doing was warming up the food you had cooked. John and Russ, you will always remember your dad telling you boys, ``Always do what's right, whether or not it is popular.'' May his tribe increase. Russ and John, you will long remember how proud he was of his family. The entire family will remember his greatest disappointment in life was not living to see his grandchildren grow up. You who are members of the Lions Club will remember Helen coming to help clean up because her husband couldn't do his part by helping with the cooking. Members of the Kentucky Optometry Association will remember Russell, who held every position in the Association, as the one who always watched the ``purse strings''. Why am I not surprised? All of Russell's friends will remember, for whatever reason, he seldom ate out. Conservative? Yes! I will remember Russell as a devoted member of First United Methodist Church where I served twice as one of his pastors. He was so predictable, even in his seating patterns. Confirmed in 1947 by Dr. A. C. Johnson, he remained faithful to his confirmation vows for the rest of his life. Grandchildren, you will remember him as a controlling grandparent who loved you very much. Russell had a good sense of humor. After fitting me with my first pair of glasses in the late 1970's, he reminded me that First Methodist folk would now think they have ``an old preacher''. We will remember his love for the farm and his dogged support of the Kentucky Wildcats. In these verses from Philippians 1 and 4, Paul, the Missionary Apostle, is speaking to the Philippian congregation. In the first passage, he says to his fellow Christians: ``I thank my God in all y remembrance of you all, making my prayer with joy, thankful for your sharing in the gospel . . .'' Memory is a gracious gift from God Almighty. We don't know when our memory will be taken from us and we will be poor indeed. I well remember those early days of my ministry at Hopkinsville First Church, and his family members are part of that memory bank. Today, we can say Russell has ``fought a good fight, has finished his course, and has kept the faith.'' In Philippians 4: 8-9, Paul admonishes his friends in the church to a life of piety. These six qualities of a committed life were the qualities of Russell's life: Whatever is true: Little did I know in 1977, when I became Russell's pastor, I would be entertaining an angel unawares. He taught that young minister, through his dedicated life to Christ, how to act conscientiously, by the standards of truth based on Holy Writ. Russell's convictions were based on what he believed the truth to be. The truth was never negotiable. He lived the lesson of truth! Yes, he did! Whatever is honorable: Russell was truly a gentleman. A Christian gentleman. An honorable gentleman. The Interpreter's Bible reminds us that the Greek word literally translated, reads: ``worthy of reverence''. Very fitting, huh? His code of ethics was based on the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes. He didn't have a copy of either posted on his front lawn. Didn't need to! Whatever is just: Russell lived out the doctrine of justice. I his daily life, and in all his social contacts, he was a fair and just gentleman. He always played by the rules of fairness, compassion and justice. Whatever is pure: A good translation of these words is this: ``Purify yourself of all mean spirits.'' Russell didn't have a mean bone in his body. No he didn't! Stubborn, but not mean! You know something? He never, not one time, told me ``Howard, I have purified myself of all mean spirits.'' He just quietly went about the business of living a good life. Whatever is lovely: Again, the Interpreter's Bible says the original meaning was, ``Whatever is worthy of love.'' (Agape). Russell had a love relationship with all of us, which was directly related to his love for our Savior Jesus Christ. Now, separated by almost 30 years from the time I first met Russell, that memory is just as vivid as ever. He loved the Lord. He loved his brothers and sisters in Christ. He loved his family! Whatever is gracious: The King James Version translates the statement this way: ``Whatever thing are of good report.'' I like that. Don't you? Russell blessed me with his positive and loving spirit. He was truly gracious, always of a good report. That's Russell. Always spoken well of. Always held in honor. The time I have left in this world, I sincerely want to put these qualities to work in my life. Things I have observed in Russell. Following Russell's death, ``Rock-a-Bye Baby'' was being played on the hospital intercom in celebration of the birth of a baby. Russell would have liked that.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the 108th Congress, I think all of us who served in this body feel a great sense of pride and accomplishment for the legislation that we passed that will have a positive impact on our Nation. I think also many of us have a great deal of regret over legislation that did not pass that we needed to pass to address serious issues facing our great Nation. I am really reluctant at this time to talk about matters that I find frustrating for me personally, but I am not going to be critical of any Member, of course. But one of the processes that seems to be taking place certainly in the House of Representatives is that each year we take up more and more of the legislative calendar to pass appropriation bills. It seems that each year we do not pass all of the appropriation bills. Then what happens is at the end of the year we come forth with a gigantic omnibus bill. This year was no exception. That is one of the reasons that a few years ago on this floor, we had a vote to go to a 2- year appropriation cycle so that one year we could appropriate money for the government, and the next year we could debate substantive issues. But as I stated earlier, we find ourselves this year with a gigantic omnibus bill once again. The sad thing about it is that when that bill went over to the Senate, many provisions were placed into that bill, and the Members of the House of Representatives never had an opportunity to vote on the bill. I just want to give one example of a substantive policy that was made because of legislation adopted on the Senate side that was never, we never had an opportunity to vote for on this side. The Bureau of Land Management oversees approximately 261 million acres of public lands, and more than 29 million acres of that land is used for wild horses and burro grazing. Now, because of section 142 being inserted into the omnibus bill on which there was no disclosure, no one knew about it; as I said earlier, we never had an opportunity to vote on it on the House side, 31 years of policy relating to public lands and wild burros and wild horses grazing on those lands were changed. As a matter of fact, the change will no longer protect those wild horses and burros on the public lands. Someone, and it is unclear who, will decide that there may be an excessive number of these animals out there, and those animals will be disposed of. Now, prior to this year's omnibus bill, in every appropriation bill relating to BLM lands, it said, ``Appropriations herein made shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractor.'' Of course, the omnibus bill eliminated that language as well. So we leave here at the end of this 108th Congress by action taken in the dark of night, without the knowledge of anyone, that changes 31 years of policy relating to the way we manage Bureau of Land Management and the animals, the wild horses and burros on those properties. I, for one, am quite frustrated by this process. It seems that each year we come with gigantic omnibus bills. This one exceeded I have been told over 3,000 pages. Most Members, of course, do not know what was in it. But the really disappointing thing to me, and I stress that, was the fact that on the House side, we never had an opportunity to vote on those changes made by the Senate.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to a provision inserted in the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Title 1 section 142 states ``Any excess animal sold under this provision shall no longer be considered to be a wild-free roaming horse or burro for purposes of this Act.'' This section completely reverses the goal of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which was aimed at stopping wild horses and burros from being harvested for commercial poses without limitation. The Bureau of Land Management, BLM, oversees approximately 261 million acres. More than 29 million acres of this land is used for wild horse and burro grazing. BLM's responsibilities with regard to caring for wild horses and burros were created by the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act in 1971. Although the act's primary concern is caring for wild horses and burros, it also permits BLM to lease this land for several purposes, such as grazing, mining, and parks. The act and subsequent regulations require BLM to manage wild horses and burros on public lands and protect them from unauthorized capture, branding, harassment, death, and ensure their humane care. Current law prohibits the sale of wild horses and burros for processing into commercial products. Section 142 will undermine these efforts by allowing wild horses and burros that are at least 10 years old or have been put up for adoption three times to be auctioned. As a cosponsor of the American Horse Protection Act, along with 227 other Members, I am appalled that wild horses and burros could possibly be captured for slaughter. Horses that are sent to slaughter are often crammed into double decker trailers, where conditions are so bad that many horses arrive at the slaughtering facility injured. Moreover, since there are no export tariffs on horse meat, no profits from this industry remain in America. The profits go directly to Belgium and France, which is where the owners of the only slaughter houses in the United States live. More importantly, the provision is a devastating blow to the equine industry, because they have worked diligently to protect horses from slaughter. Section 142 was inserted during conference negotiations, leaving many members unaware of the new provision and its impact. In addition, no stand-alone legislation has been introduced and, to my knowledge, the House Resources Committee had not seen this language. Because this provision was inserted behind closed doors, no congressional authorizing committee had an opportunity to comment on this provision and its impact. Additionally, no hearings have been held to get feedback from BLM on possible alternatives. In fact, since 1988, every Department of Interior Appropriations bill has included language that states, ``Appropriations herein made shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractor.'' Coincidently, this language was left out this year. I believe that if this language was brought before the full House for a vote as stand-alone legislation it would fail, because clearly the majority of the House has gone on record opposing the slaughter of horses. Mr. Speaker, it does not speak well of this institution when individual members of the House and Senate can change 16 .years of policy by sneaking a provision into the Omnibus without disclosure, discussion, or public knowledge. Horses are part of our American heritage and hold a favored status. They are not food animals in this country and, unlike cows, pigs, and chickens, they should not be bred, raised, or gathered for slaughter.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an important issue facing the next Congress. Since enactment of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, obesity rates in America have soared, including among children. According to a recent briefing provided by the Institute of Food Technologists, ``the most recent data from NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) in 2002, 65 percent of Americans were overweight or obese, 30 percent were obese and 4.9 percent were extremely obese. Over 400,000 individuals die each year due to poor diet and physical inactivity. For the first time in 100 years, children face shorter life spans then their parents, as the obesity rate for children has doubled since 1980. The total estimated direct and indirect costs of obesity in the U.S. exceed $117 billion annually. Less than 1/3 of adults engage in the recommended amounts of physical activity. In fact, more than 25 percent of Americans report no leisure time activity at all.'' While evidence suggests that the increase in obesity rates is due primarily to a decline in physical activity rather than an increase in caloric consumption, the problem will not be solved by increased physical activity alone. For the sake of public health, many Americans must modify both their diets and physical activity practices. We in Congress should examine whether our current food labeling laws are providing for the nutrition information, including claims regarding the health effects and nutritional composition of foods, that consumers need. A realistic appraisal of our food labeling law provides a mixed review: The law effectively prohibits false or misleading nutrition information. Uniform food labeling laws facilitate consumer education and the efficient flow of commerce. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) and its implementing regulations took a prescriptive approach that emphasized fat, which effectively de-emphasized the very important consideration of total calories in a food. Though well intentioned, this approach may have exacerbated dietary problems. The highly prescriptive approach of the NLEA, combined with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) cumbersome approval process, have resulted in the agency often standing in the way of providing truthful, non-misleading information to consumers. FDA has lost every major First Amendment case regarding implementation of the NLEA. In the landmark decision, Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999), reh'g, en banc, denied, 172 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1999), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals even characterized the government's defense of its stifling, moribund regulatory approach as ``almost frivolous.'' Our law and regulatory systems cannot continue to block or excessively delay delivery of truthful, non-misleading information to American consumers. To its great credit, the FDA has recently started to issue enforcement discretion letters. that indicate the agency would not take enforcement action against particular qualified health claims that it has determined are truthful and non-misleading, even though those, claims have not been approved pursuant to the excruciatingly slow NLEA process. While I have reservations about this approach, it is clearly a reasoned attempt to be less obstructive of truthful, non-misleading food label statements. For its part, this FDA initiative is likely to improve public health. However, it appears that Congress could do more. Some of these observations are not new. In 1997, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA), which provided for streamlined procedures for allowing certain products and claims to get to market. Simply put, FDA can say ``no'' with relative ease and speed, but has extensive clearance procedures with correspondingly long time requirements to say ``yes'' to any petition. So, FDAMA provided for notifications for indirect food additives, as well as for health claims and nutrient content claims based upon authoritative statements of certain scientific bodies or the National Academy of Sciences. Under that system, if FDA does not object to a notification within a specified period, the FDAMA requirements are deemed satisfied and the product or claim approved. Thanks to addition of these provisions, FDA has more expeditiously approved health claims that have provided consumers helpful information regarding the relationships between potassium and the risk of high blood pressure and stoke, and between whole grain foods and the risk of heart disease and certain cancers, as well as nutrient content claims identifying foods that are significant sources of choline and of DHA, EPA, and ALA, specific omega-3 fatty acids. Broader use of this concept must be considered if we are to continue to allow FDA to block a product or claim before it gets to market, but expect advances in science to reach market without delay that is unacceptably costly in terms of public health and capital investment. Finally, FDA pre-market responsibilities regarding foods are extensive and include a number of matters that are not critical to public health protection, such as temporary permits for test marketing of a food in contemplation of amending its regulatory standard of identity. Often, FDA has explained that they are not handling such matters with a responsible pace because they are low priorities. As a matter of public health protection, such prioritization makes sense. However, it is time for us to review provisions of law and regulation that require agency pre-market approvals regarding low priority matters. If pre-market regulatory scrutiny needs to be maintained regarding such matters, consideration should be given to substituting notification procedures for the dysfunctional processes in place at this time. Mr. Speaker, I share these observations so that my colleagues may consider them prior to initiating work of the next Congress and in hopes of stimulating debate on the subject.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of Mrs. Mary Towles Sasseen Wilson, a distinguished native of Henderson, Kentucky, which I have the pleasure of representing in the House. In recognizing Mrs. Wilson, we also pay tribute to all mothers in this great Nation, as she is responsible in large part for the origination of the Mother's Day holiday. In 1860, Mrs. Wilson was born Mary Towles Sasseen in western Kentucky. She spent most of her life in Henderson as a school teacher. Had she never become involved in the development and spread of Mother's Day, she still would have been recalled fondly by many western Kentuckians as a tireless, caring, and effective educator. However, Wilson's story was not to end there. Spurred by the love and devotion she felt for her own mother, in 1887 Mary Sasseen held her first public Mother's Day celebration at the Center Street School in Henderson. In 1893 she published and dedicated to her mother a pamphlet entitled Mother's Day Celebration, which defined the holiday and suggested readings and activities suitable for its celebration. In subsequent years she worked diligently toward the introduction of Mother's Day observations at schools and towns in Kentucky and elsewhere. When Sasseen attempted in 1899 to become one of the region's earliest female elected officials by running for Superintendent of Public Instruction, commentary regarding the campaign cited her as ``the author and originator of Mother's Day.'' Although Sasseen's attempts to win elective office failed, she continued to work for the furtherance of Mother's Day in America. In 1904 she married Judge William Marshall Wilson and moved to Freeport, Florida, which was to be the site of her untimely death in 1906. Less than a decade later, in response to the efforts of other notable Mother's Day advocates in the tradition of Mrs. Wilson, President Woodrow Wilson signed a joint resolution designating the second Sunday in May as Mother's Day. Mrs. Wilson's efforts were recognized by the Kentucky General Assembly in 1926, when it passed a resolution acclaiming Mary Towles Sasseen as ``the originator of the idea of the celebration of Mother's Day'' and giving her credit for ``her splendid work in attempting to bring to the minds of children everywhere the full admiration, respect, and love due our mothers.'' I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these are efforts no less worthy of commendation today than when they were first carried out and honored over a century ago. It is my distinct pleasure to bring to the attention of this House the noteworthy legacy of Mrs. Wilson and all of the mothers she worked so hard to honor.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. We are excited today to have on the floor this legislation relating to prescription drug abuse in the United States, which has reached epidemic proportions. Recent statistics show that 6.2 million Americans abuse prescription drugs. To help combat this problem, many States, such as my own State of Kentucky and about 20 others, have adopted prescription drug monitoring programs to assist physicians and law enforcement officials stop the abuse and prosecute those individuals who are breaking the law. The cornerstone of most existing drug-monitoring programs is that they allow physicians access to the information before writing a prescription for a controlled substance. Physicians tell us that it is an invaluable tool in treating their patients. However, there is one glaring problem, and that is that these programs operate only intra- state. And as the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) mentioned, it is essential that we have an inter-state program. To that end, I have been pleased to work with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, on legislation to address this issue. This legislation, H.R. 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act, creates a grant program housed at the Department of Health and Human Services which will fund the establishment and operation of State-run prescription drug monitoring programs. It establishes standards for reporting data and governs who has access to such information and under what circumstances because of the privacy issues. From the beginning our goal has been to give physicians the tool they need to treat patients, which also provides a better mechanism to prosecute individuals who are allegedly using illegal controlled substances. I believe this is a good bill, a balanced bill, and one that will provide States with an important tool to curb prescription drug abuse. I would like at this time to thank all of the cosponsors and give particular thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), without all of whom we would not have been successful without their efforts to get this legislation through the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I would also like to recognize the hard work of our committee staff, particularly Chuck Clapton and Ryan Long and John Halliwell on my staff; and, of course, we could not have done it without the Democratic committee staff, and I would also like to thank them. I would urge all Members to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the situation on Cyprus. The best way to commemorate the twin anniversaries of the coup d'etat and the following events in Cyprus 30 years ago in July 1974 is to make sure that they never happen again. This is only possible if the political problem in Cyprus between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots is settled once and for all. This in turn will make Cyprus a bridge of cooperation, rather than conflict, between Greece and Turkey, and a bastion of stability in the eastern Mediterranean. A historic opportunity was missed just a few months ago when the ``Annan Plan'' was rejected by the Greek Cypriots by a margin of 3 to 1, while it was accepted by the Turkish Cypriots with a clear majority of 65 percent in separate referenda. The United States, the European Union, Turkey and Greece had given strong support to the Plan as a reasonable compromise. According to Secretary-General Kofi Annan's recent report to the Security Council regarding the results of the referenda, ``the Turkish Cypriot vote has undone any rationale for pressuring and isolating them.'' Annan also called on U.N. Security Council members to ``give a strong lead to all States to cooperate both bilaterally and in international bodies, to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development.'' Having demonstrated their conciliatory spirit by letting bygones be bygones, the Turkish Cypriots rightly expect to be reintegrated with the international community in economic, cultural, social and other fields. U.S. and EU assistance to Turkish Cypriots to help them rehabilitate their economy and ease their isolation has been forthcoming but modest. I believe the Turkish Cypriots need and deserve our help in their struggle for justice and a better future.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, one uplifting message for the American people is the legislation that this House passed relating to the prescription drug benefit under Medicare. This weekend I hosted three meetings in my district. Vicki Mayes came to one of those meetings. This was what she said. When she used her Medicare-approved drug discount card for the first time a week and a half ago, she was shocked. Drugs that normally cost her $50 cost her only $2.90. On Thursday when she went to the pharmacy for two more refills, drugs that would normally cost her $54 cost her $16.90. All of us can be proud of this new prescription drug benefit passed by this Congress. As President Bush said, it was the most important expansion of Medicare that we have had since the inception of the Medicare program.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. F.E. Whitney of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. F.E. Whitney has faithfully served his county, his community and his fellow citizens through a lifetime of public service. Mr. Whitney's family settled in Hopkinsville in 1897. He was born in 1916. He graduated from Kentucky State University in 1937 and returned to Hopkinsville where he still resides today. Mr. Whitney is a member of what Tom Brokaw termed ``The Greatest Generation'', serving his country honorably in World War II. Mr. Whitney has been an involved citizen in Christian County and Hopkinsville, Kentucky for over 50 years. He became a member of the Kentucky Association of Realtors in 1958 and was later accepted as a member of the National Board of Realtors. He was the first African American member. Some of F.E. Whitney's many accomplishments include serving the public as a Realtor and Small Business Owner when he established F. E. Whitney Real Estate Agency, Inc. in 1948. This business remains in operation today. F.E. Whitney served 21 years on the Hopkinsville City Council. In 1973, he served as Mayor Pro Tem. In 1977, he was elected to the Christian County Fiscal Court where he served over 20 years. Mr. Whitney has served the Pennyrile Area Development District, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, The Pioneer's and his church. He has been an activist for civil rights. F.E. Whitney was honored by Christian County and the State of Kentucky when the I-24 Welcome Center was named in his honor. Mr. Speaker, Mr. F.E. Whitney embodies the spirit, commitment and sacrifice that we all should strive for in our daily lives. He has not only made a success out of his life, but he has also been a gift to our community. I am proud to represent him in the Congress. On behalf of the citizens of the First District of Kentucky, we thank him for his service and we bring his accomplishments to the attention of this House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge a group of high school students from my District congratulate them on winning the State of Kentucky Fast Pitch Softball Championship. The Calloway County Lady Lakers won their first state softball championship this year when they defeated Owensboro Catholic by the score of 3 to 2 on June 13th. This was only the second State Championship in the school's history. I would first like to recognize the team, beginning with the coaches. They include Head Coach, James Pigg, and Assistant Coaches: Eddie Morris, Tom Fox, Troy Webb, Pat McMillen, and Cija Vaughn. Your hard work and dedication is admirable and greatly appreciated. Your team is celebrating this accomplishment today because of your efforts. The players' teamwork and athletic abilities are also evident with this victory. The players are: Whitney Hendon, Kaysin Hutching, Traci Rose, Kalyn Fox, Aimee Dial, Ashley Chadwick, Chelsea Morris, Marcy Boggess, Danielle McMillen, Megan Starks, Carrie Radke, Jessica Greer, and Jessica Dial. Congratulations on this impressive athletic achievement. Your will and determination are obvious, especially since you were playing the championship game at 2:00 in the morning. This is a honor for your families, your team, your school, and the First District of Kentucky. Congratulations Lady Lakers, and I wish you continued success in the future.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the gentleman from Arizona for being concerned about our deficit, but this is not the proper place for it. Our farmers for many years have had this quota, a legal quota. They now see it being diminished by forces beyond their control. I would like to voice my strong opposition to the Flake amendment.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Ron Beaton of Paducah, Kentucky on the occasion of his retirement from WPSD-TV after 29 years of distinguished work and community leadership. Ron has been a public face and trusted figure in Paducah and the surrounding area since he began working at the television station in 1975. He started out as an intern with WPSD immediately after graduating from Lone Oak High School and has been an on-air fixture ever since. After working on weekends and during the summers while attending Murray State University, Ron has served as a reporter, producer, anchorman, and managing editor. As his colleagues and viewers readily attest, Ron has handled all types of news stories with professionalism and sensitivity. His coverage of political events, including ten Presidential and Vice- Presidential visits to the region, has garnered well-deserved accolades. In addition, Ron's dignified and caring manner has served the community well during trying times, such as the tragic shootings at Heath High School in 1999 and the deadly tornadoes that ravaged Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri last spring. Spending one's entire career at a single station, as Ron has done, is increasingly rare in the competitive television news business. Despite opportunities to move to larger and more lucrative markets, Ron decided to keep his career and family in the town he knows and loves. WPSD's viewers in western Kentucky, southern Illinois, southeastern Missouri, and northwest Tennessee have been fortunate to have welcomed Ron into their living rooms for so long. My constituents have further benefitted from Beaton's service in ways that reach well beyond the television studio. Ron and his colleagues at WPSD have worked with the Lion's Club Telethon of Stars and the Easter Seals for decades to raise millions of dollars for children with disabilities. His work with the popular ``Fugitive Files'' news segment has led to over 200 suspects apprehended and at least as many communities made safer. Ron has been an active spiritual leader and teacher in his home church of Trinity United Methodist in Paducah and many other congregations. The financial counseling he has provided, both on the air and through the Money Matters financial planning business he will now attend to full-time, has helped many families reach goals they never thought attainable. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Ron for the positive example he has been for us as an anchorman, businessman, community leader, husband, and father. Tonight, when he signs off with his trademark ``Tomorrow's Friday!'' for the second-to-last time, he will remind us all that despite the dour outlook that prevails in much of the news media today, there is still much to be happy about in Paducah and places like it all across America. It is with great pride that I represent Ron in Congress and enjoy having his son, Benjamin, on my staff here in Washington. I am honored to bring his accomplishments to the attention of this House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I support efforts to streamline the claims process for DOE workers seeking compensation for illnesses resulting from exposure to toxic substances and other hazardous materials, and I will vote in favor of the amendment. The changes in this amendment will not insure payments to claimants in states like Kentucky where there is no willing payor to cover compensation costs. DOE lacks the authority to direct the DOE contractors or their insurors who employed these workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to pay compensation claims even if the claims are approved by DOE physicians panels. More important, the Paducah uranium enrichment plant is no longer a DOE-run facility. Plant operations were privatized in 1998 and DOE cannot direct that private operator, USEC, to pay claims approved by DOE physician panels. Only the current DOE contractor employees at Paducah will have a willing payor. So, depending on what state you live in, even if you prove that your illness is work-related, you may never receive a dime in compensation. Of the 23,000 claims filed with DOE, 2,874 were filed by my constituents because of illnesses they contracted while working at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Those workers and thousands like them across the country deserve more. I do support the amendment because if Congress takes no other action this session repairing this program, this will at least help expedite the DOE claims process. But I think all former and current workers in the DOE complex would be much better served if we fixed the willing payor problem once and for all and moved the administration of the entire DOE program to the Department of Labor. That is still my goal as we look to the future.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, any visitor to the Kentucky Horse Park in Lexington, Kentucky, upon leaving that park, would have to be impressed with its tranquility, with its beauty, and really with the inspiration of the place. Kentuckians are particularly impressed with the Horse Park because it pays tribute to an animal which has meant so much to our State in the past, which means a lot to our State today, and will mean a great deal to our State tomorrow. As a matter of fact, the economic impact of the horse industry in the State of Kentucky is equal to $3.4 billion a year and the horse industry provides 52,000 direct and indirect jobs in Kentucky. And, of course, Kentucky is very proud of the fact that they produce 29 percent of all the thoroughbreds born in North America. Two weeks ago we had the 130th running of the Kentucky Derby in Louisville, Kentucky. It is on the first Saturday of May in each year. Two weeks later, which happens to be this coming Saturday, will be the 129th running of the Preakness over in Maryland, and then soon after that will be the running of the Belmont Stakes up in New York. And that is referred to as the Triple Crown in the racing industry. I happened to have been at the Kentucky Derby on the first Saturday in May, and there was, of course, great excitement when the chestnut horse Smarty Jones won the Derby and the Chapman family, the owners of that horse, and the trainer and all of the supporters and even the Governor of Kentucky who is a former Member of this House, Ernie Fletcher, there in the winners circle, and they were all excited and enthusiastic. And I know the winner of the Preakness on this coming Saturday will see the same excitement and enthusiasm and great joy. But I also want to talk about another side of the horse industry tonight, and I would like to go back to 1986 when another beautiful chestnut horse named Ferdinand won the Derby in 1986. The owners of Ferdinand were Howard Keck and his wife, of California. The trainer was Charlie Whittingham. And the jockey was Bill Shoemaker, a famous jockey that, by the way, this House passed a resolution in his honor less than 2 months ago. When Ferdinand was retired, he at that time was the fourth-most money winner of all time in the United States. He had over $3.8 million in earnings. And upon the death of Howard Keck, Ferdinand was sent to Japan. He was purchased by the J.S. Company, was sent to Arrow Stud Farm on the Island of Hokkaido, Japan. And the family of Howard Keck, specifically his daughter-in-law Dessie Keck and her son Brighton and her daughter Charisse, made an effort to bring Ferdinand back. They wanted to locate Ferdinand in Japan and bring him back to their ranch in California. And after a while, after searching and talking to Japanese officials in the Jockey Club of Japan and others, it came to light that Ferdinand, the winner of the 1986 Kentucky Derby, the winner of the 1987 Breeders Cup, Horse of the Year in 1987, had been slaughtered in Japan. Arrow Stud Farm evidently either sold, gave to a horse trader in Japan named Watanabe, and either with their knowledge or without their knowledge, Ferdinand, this spectacular horse, was slaughtered. That could have been a very sad ending to a story, and it certainly made the press throughout the world. It was covered in practically every newspaper in the world about what happened to Ferdinand. But there has been some good that has come from it, because as a result of the death of Ferdinand, it has come to the attention of the American people that horses are still being slaughtered in the U.S. for human consumption; not human consumption in America but human consumption in Europe, even though horses have never been a part of the food chain in America. And I go back to that Horse Park in Lexington, Kentucky, and there is an inscription there and it says ``Civilization was built on the back of a horse.'' And in the history of our country, pioneers, riding horses, horses pulling wagons of material, pulling stage coaches, pulling covered wagons, horses have been a part of our civilization, in racing, entertaining us, work on ranches, dressage. In all sorts of ways they have been a partner with man, and they have never been a part of the food chain in America. And yet today there are two plants in the United States that are still slaughtering horses for human consumption. One of them is owned by a French family in Kaufman, Texas, and the other is owned by a Belgian family outside of Fort Worth, Texas. It is interesting that probably the biggest horse race in this country is the thoroughbred world championship referred to as the Breeders Cup, and the Breeders Cup will be held in Texas on October 30 of this year. In fact, it is going to be held at Lone Star Park in the heart of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, as I said, on Saturday, October 30. And I happen to have a letter that was written to members of the Texas Delegation from the founder of the Breeders Cup who happens to live in Kentucky. His name is John Gaines. He is a renowned horse breeder, businessman, community leader, and when we think about people in the thoroughbred industry, there are very few people with greater respect than John Gaines. But in this letter that he wrote to the members of the Texas Delegation he said, ``As the founder of the Breeders Cup World Thoroughbred Championship, which will be held at Lone Star Park in the heart of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex on Saturday, October 30, 2004, I am appalled that a Belgian company will be slaughtering horses a few miles from this world-class event. Horses are being slaughtered, as I said, in only two places in the United States, and both facilities are in Texas. The Belgian facility is located outside of Fort Worth, and a French company is slaughtering horses in Kaufman, Texas. These two facilities are slaughtering approximately 45,000 horses a year for human consumption in Europe. As you know, horses have never been a part of the food chain in America. Less than 2 years ago, U.S. Senator John Cornyn, while Attorney General of Texas, rendered a legal opinion that it was a criminal offense under section 149.002 of the Texas Agriculture Code for a person to sell horse meat as food for human consumption or to possess horse meat for the purpose of selling it as food for human consumption. So the Attorney General of Texas announced in a legal opinion that it was a violation of criminal law, it was a crime, to slaughter horses in Texas or possess them for slaughter. And yet horses are still being slaughtered in Texas today. Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) have introduced House Resolution 857 in the United States Congress to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption or to transport horses for the purpose of slaughter for human consumption. This legislation, as of today, although not all cosponsors are reflected on the record yet because they have not had time to get their names, but commitments are there; but as of today we have 230 cosponsors of this legislation in the House of Representatives. Anyone familiar with the House knows that if you get a bill to the floor, it only takes 218 to pass it. So we have enough cosponsors on this bill right now in the House to pass it and prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption. But we have a few problems as well, and before I talk about those, I want to mention that this same legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. It was introduced about 8 days ago, and it already has seven cosponsors on the U.S. Senate side. The legislation was introduced there by Senator John Ensign of Nevada, who happens to be a veterinarian, and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. One would think that since horses have never been a part of the food chain in America, that they have the history with helping to build our civilization, that there would not be any opposition to this bill. That is true, there is not a lot of public opposition to it; but there are a lot of people in the back room, in the dark of night, opposing the bill. One of the organizations, the leadership, I must say, which is opposing this bill, is the American Quarter Horse Association of Amarillo, Texas. I say leadership of the American Quarter Horse Association because those of us involved in this effort, and, as I said, there are now over 230 Members of the House, have received lots of letters from quarter horse owners around the country who support this legislation. Even the American Quarter Horse Association says, oh, well, we do not support the slaughter of horses, but we are concerned that there is not a place in America to take care of all these horses if we do not slaughter them, and we are so concerned that they will be abused and mistreated and maybe even abandoned that they probably would be better off slaughtered than to let that happen to them. Well, I can tell you that I do not agree with that argument; and most of the cosponsors of this bill, in fact, I would say all of them, do not agree with that argument. And why do we not agree with it? We do not agree with it because we know there are in excess of 200 entities around America, farms in America, in which rescues are being made of horses, where unwanted horses are being taken in. Another interesting argument of the American Quarter Horse Association is they say, well, we do not want them abandoned, we do not want them mistreated, so we are opposing this bill because we are afraid they will be abandoned and mistreated. But they also say to us privately, your bill does not regulate these 204 entities out there who are taking these horses in that are unwanted. Yet that same group makes it very clear that they do not want any government intervention involved in anything that they do. So I find that argument not particularly strong, because these farms that are out there are raising money privately to take care of these horses so that they do not have to go to slaughter. So we have over 200 farms out across the country that are taking these horses in, and the Blood Horse Magazine, which is the official magazine of the thoroughbred industry, recently devoted an entire magazine talking about the proliferation of groups who are taking these horses in. I might also add that each year in America there are about 600,000 horses that die, and those horses are disposed of in a lot of different ways. They do not go to slaughter. They are either euthanized by their owner, they are given to a renderer, or the owner shoots them for whatever reason. But that is the important part of this legislation, H.R. 857; it does not in any way interfere with an individual owner of a horse doing whatever he wants to with that horse. It simply says they cannot be slaughtered. Now, why are we so emphatic about that? I have already pointed out that horses have never been part of the food chain in America. The only people benefiting from this are a French family and a Belgian family exporting this meat to Europe. But one thing that is important to understand is that there are so- called self-described ``killer buyers'' around the country who go to auctions. They will pay a couple of hundred dollars for horses, and then they put them in double-decker trailer trucks, and they ship them all the way to Texas. The interesting thing about this transportation is that the Department of Agriculture's own regulations state, we know that horses are transported in double-decker trailers, and some of them are going to be killed, some of them are going to be injured, many of them are going to arrive in Texas in very bad condition, because we are going to allow them to be transported up to 28 to 30 hours without food, water or exercise. Any commercial transporter of horses will tell you they should not be moved over 6 or 7 hours without food, water and exercise. Now, the Department of Agriculture regulations also state that we are allowing them to be moved in double-decker trailers, even though we know that those on the top do not have enough room to stand up completely. But we are going to allow it because individuals have made economic investment in these trailers. So, despite the injury to the horse, we are going to allow it. Then these same regulations allow stallions to be put with other stallions, to be put with mares, to be put with foals, all in one. And anybody in the horse industry knows that stallions have to always be separated, and they certainly should not be put with foals, they should not be put with mares, and they most certainly should not be put with other stallions, because they fight. So we have these horses being purchased by killer buyers, transported up to 30 hours, and many times longer than 30 hours, without food, water or exercise, in cramped trailers, fighting each other, kicking each other, biting each other, killing each other, all the way to Texas. So that is another reason that we want to stop this process. In addition to that, anyone that has actually seen the slaughter cannot help but be disgusted with the way it is done, because a captive bolt is used, in which the horse's head is really not restrained, and it is administered by untrained or unprofessional people. These horses have to be shot three or four times, frequently. I do not want to describe the scene, because it would make most people sick to see these animals being jolted, falling down, trying to get up. So it is an inhumane practice, it is against Texas State law, yet this French family and this Belgian family have filed a lawsuit in Federal Court, and they have got it tied up in court. That is another reason we decided to introduce this legislation is to help Texas enforce its own law. So we find ourselves with a situation of the Texas legislature saying you cannot slaughter horses in Texas, it is against our agricultural code and it is a crime, and yet it is being done today. One other group that I would like to point out, at least the political arm of this group, which has expressed its opposition to H.R. 857, is the American Equine Practitioners. Their president is from Lexington, Kentucky, and he is a veterinarian. He has made the statement that using the captive bolt is a humane way to kill a horse. But we went over to the Senate and we had a meeting with Senator John Ensign, who is also a veterinarian. After hearing the debate, Mr. Ensign decided he was going to introduce legislation to prohibit the slaughter or transportation of horses to slaughter. So he is supporting H.R. 857. I might add, we have veterinarians from all over the country, we have veterinarians from all over the country who are writing in in support of this legislation. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the Speaker. So we have veterinarians from all over the country that are writing in in support of this legislation. We have the owners of quarter horses writing in supporting this legislation, and we have their political arm opposed to it, but they do not like to talk about it publicly. So in conclusion tonight, I simply would like to make this statement: We are continuing our efforts to obtain cosponsors of this legislation. I am quite confident we are going to eventually attain the number of 260 to 270 cosponsors. We are already at 230, and we have not made that big of an effort yet. We are hoping that when we get up to that number that the committee that has jurisdiction over this bill will allow it out. But I think it is important that we have this debate because it is the first time that I am aware of that we have had a debate in the United States Congress on whether or not we should allow foreign companies to slaughter our horses to export to Europe for human consumption, in a nonhumane way, I might add. Now, Matthew Scully is a former literary agent of the National Review and a part-time speech writer for President Bush; and he recently wrote a book entitled ``Dominion.'' In this book, Mr. Scully made some statements that I think all of us would benefit from just thinking about. In his book, Mr. Scully affirms and I want to emphasize that word, ``affirms,'' man's dominion over animals. But he also reminds us of our responsibility to animals. To quote Mr. Scully, ``The care of animals bring with it often complicated problems of economics, ecology, and science. But above all, it confronts us with questions of conscience. Many seem to have lost all sense of restraint toward animals, an understanding of natural boundaries, a respect for them as creatures with needs and wants and a place and purpose of their own. Too often, too casually, we assume that our interests always come first, and if it is profitable or if it is expedient, that is all we need to know. But sometimes we are called to treat animals with kindness, not because they have rights, not because they have power, not because they have any claim of equality, but in a sense because they do not have any of those things, because animals stand unequal and powerless before us. It is true that the welfare of animals is not high on most people's priority list, and it maybe should not be. ``But kindness to animals is among the humbler duties of human charity, though for just that reason it is among the more easily neglected. And it is true that there will always be enough injustice and human suffering in the world, and we are reminded of it every day, to make the wrong done to animals seem small and insignificant. And perhaps, Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is part of the animals' role among us, simply to awaken humility and compassion in human beings. We have the power, we have the rights, and we have dominion over animals. That is precisely why I believe that the bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), H.R. 857, is so important to our country. I look forward to this debate. In closing, I am reminded of a comment made by my friend Russell Williams, who owns one of the biggest standardbred farms in Pennsylvania. He said, the slaughter of horses in H.R. 857 is not so much about horses, but it is more about us as people. So I hope that the Members of this body will give some thought to this legislation. It has great momentum. It is moving on the other side of the Capitol in the Senate, and we have every expectation and hope that we can pass it and stop this sad part of our history as it relates to animals.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the first Saturday in May is a special day in the heart of anyone who considers themselves to be a Kentuckian. It is also a special day in the heart of anyone, whether they live outside of Kentucky or not, whether they are a citizen of some other country of the world, but if that person has a special affinity for a breed of horse called the thoroughbred, the first Saturday in May is a special day because it is on that day that the Kentucky Derby is raced each year. This past Saturday, the 130th running of the Kentucky Derby was held in Louisville, Kentucky, and a chestnut colt by the name of Smarty Jones won the race this year. His jockey was Stewart Elliott. His trainer was John Servis. His owners are Pat and Roy Chapman; and as you would expect, winning a race of such importance, they were quite ecstatic. They were happy; they were enthusiastic; they had a large celebration. I have in my hand a picture of another chestnut colt who won the Kentucky Derby in 1986. This horse was the son of a famous sire called Naginski II. The name of this horse is Ferdinand. The jockey on this horse in 1986 was Willie Shoemaker, and the House of Representatives 6 weeks ago did a resolution in honor of Willie Shoemaker. The trainer of Ferdinand in 1986 was a gentleman named Charlie Wittingham of California. The owners of Ferdinand were Mr. and Mrs. Howard Keck of California; and on that first Saturday in May in 1986, the Keck family and their friends and the trainer and the jockey celebrated with great enthusiasm, in the same way that Smarty Jones and the Chapmans celebrated Smarty Jones winning that race. When Ferdinand won that race in 1986, the next year, 1987, he went on to win the Breeders' Cup by defeating the 1987 winner of the Kentucky Derby, a horse named Ali Sheba; and in 1987, Ferdinand also was selected Horse of the Year. When Ferdinand retired from racing, he was the fifth leading money winner in the history of racing, winning over $3.7 million; and like most horses of his caliber, he was retired for breeding purposes because he had a champion pedigree and he had a champion heart. On the death of Howard Keck, Ferdinand was syndicated and sold to a Japanese company called J.S. Company, owner of a breeding farm in Japan called Arrow Stud Farm which is located on the northern island of Hokkaido, Japan; and Ferdinand went there in 1994, and he was there for about six breeding seasons. Initially, he was very popular; but over time, he lost popularity in Japan, and Arrow Stud, either working with or in conjunction with a horse trainer named Watanabe, gained possession of this horse, Ferdinand; and to make a long story short, Ferdinand was slaughtered in a Japanese slaughterhouse. So this was the fifth leading money winner of all time, won the 1986 Kentucky Derby, was 1987 Horse of the Year, won the Breeders' Cup and was slaughtered in Japan. Interestingly enough, the Keck family of California, before they realized that Ferdinand had been slaughtered in 2002, did everything possible to locate Ferdinand; and they wanted to bring him back to their farm in California for retirement, and finally they found out, it was acknowledged that Ferdinand was slaughtered in Japan. Other than the Keck family and those who followed the horse industry, this was just another story with a tragic ending. However, it was a story that ended up in the newspapers and periodicals around the world, and from those stories, we suddenly came to realize that in the United States horses are being slaughtered in two locations for human consumption; and the horse meat is being exported to Japan, Italy, France, and Belgium. There are only two places that this is occurring today. One plant is owned by a French family operating in Kaufman, Texas. The other plant is owned by a Belgian family operated in and around Fort Worth, Texas; and each year they are slaughtering about 45,000 horses in those two plants. What makes this quite interesting is that the former Attorney General of Texas, who now is in the United States Senate, Mr. John Cornyn, was asked in 2002 for a legal opinion on whether or not the slaughter of horses for human consumption in Texas violated Texas State law. In his opinion, which he rendered in August, Mr. Cornyn, as Attorney General of Texas, issued a ruling that, yes, it is a violation of Texas State law to slaughter a horse, possess a horse, transport a horse for human consumption. He also went on to say it is a criminal offense; and yet, despite this opinion, the two plants in Texas, one owned by a French family, one owned by a Belgian family, filed a lawsuit, and they continued to slaughter horses for human consumption in Texas. Unlike cattle and pigs and other types of animals, horses in the history of the United States have never been a part of the food chain; and for that reason, Members of the United States Congress, under the leadership, and he has provided tremendous leadership, of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a Republican, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a Democrat, both of them introduced legislation to prohibit the slaughter or transport with intent of slaughtering horses for human consumption. This legislation, as one would expect, has the support of a lot of so-called animal rights groups; but as a Representative of a rural district in Kentucky where we have a lot of livestock, I have never been particularly involved with so-called animal rights groups. But in addition to animal rights groups, we have a large list of businesses who are supporting this legislation because horses have never been a part of the food chain in America. I want to just read a few of them: Blue Horse Charities; Churchhill Downs; Eaton Sales; Fasig-Tipton Company, one of the largest thoroughbred auctioneers in the country; John Gaines, the founder of the Breeders' Cup World Thoroughbred Championship; the Hambletonian Society; the National Thoroughbred Racing Association; the National Steeplechase Association; the New York Racing Association; the Texas Thoroughbred Association opposes slaughter. And I could go on and on and on. So we have all of these groups that are supporting this legislation to stop the slaughter of horses for human consumption by a French family and a Belgian family to be exported to Europe. And there are only two organizations willing to publicly state that they oppose the legislation to stop the slaughter. One of them is the American Quarter Horse Association headquartered in Amarillo, Texas, although I can tell you we have hundreds of letters from quarter horse owners from around the country who support this legislation; and then the other group, the American Equine Practitioners political arm, has said they oppose this legislation, although we have hundreds of letters from veterinarians from around the country who provide care for horses, say they support this legislation. Now, one of the sad things about this whole episode of slaughtering horses is that the United States Department of Agriculture has regulations that supposedly regulate the method by which these horses are transported to slaughter. They allow them to be transported in double-decker trailers even though the regulations state that we recognize that many horses will be injured in this process, and they allow stallions to be placed with other stallions which any horseman knows should never be done. Stallions placed with mares, stallions placed with foals, crowded in double-decker trailers. The Department of Agriculture regulations state we recognize that many of these horses do not have enough head room and so they are bent over. They arrive at the slaughterhouse injured, some dead. They are allowed to be transported up to 28 hours without food, water, or drink; and yet any commercial transporter of horses will tell you that a horse should never be transported for over 7 hours without food, water or exercise, and yet the Federal Department of Agriculture regulations allow 28, up to 30 hours; and even then it frequently is not enforced. So moving the horses to slaughter is a very inhumane action. And then at the slaughterhouse, the execution is carried out with a captive bolt administered by unprofessionals or nonprofessionals. The horses' heads are not held, and frequently they have to do three or four jolts before the horse is stunned enough to have his throat slit. It is not a very welcoming site. And yet because of the method by which this is carried out, the only two entities performing slaughter of horses today are a Belgian company and a French company. In the United States Congress right now without much effort we already have 214 cosponsors of this legislation to stop this practice, primarily because of the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I might also say that we do have a very strong coalition working together; and Bo Derek, who is an owner of horses, has become involved in this issue and has made a big difference as well. I went with the President of the American Equine Practitioners, who is a veterinarian who opposes this legislation, to the United States Senate; and we had a meeting with John Ensign, the Senator from Nevada, who is a veterinarian, and he listened to the debate on the issue. When the debate was over, John Ensign made a decision that he was going to introduce this legislation on the Senate side, and has done so with a cosponsor, Mary Landrieu, the Democrat from Louisiana. They have a number of cosponsors over there. So this is legislation that is picking up some real support. I want to take this opportunity to inform Members that it is our intention to continue to push this legislation even though we face many obstacles still within certain points within the House of Representatives. But when this is over, we are going to have in the neighborhood of 230, 240, 250, at a minimum, cosponsors of this legislation. Now, there is a writer named Matthew Scully, who is a former literary agent of the National Review and an occasional speech writer for President Bush; and he recently wrote a book entitled ``Dominion.'' And in his book, Mr. Scully affirms man's dominion over animals, which is certainly true; we have dominion over animals. But he also reminds us of our responsibility to animals. To quote Mr. Scully: ``The care of animals brings with it often complicated problems of economics, ecology, and science. But above all, it confronts us with questions of conscience. Many of us seem to have lost all sense of restraint towards animals and understanding of natural boundaries, a respect for them as creatures with needs and wants and a place and a purpose of their own. Too often, to casually, we assume that our interests always come first, and if it is profitable or expedient, that is all we need to know. Sometimes we are called to treat animals with kindness, not because they have rights, not because they have power, not because they have any claim to equality, but in a sense because they do not, because they all stand unequal and powerless before us. ``It is true that the welfare of animals is not high on most people's priority list and kindness to animals is among the humbler duties of human charity, though for just that reason among the more easily neglected, and it is true there will always be enough injustice and human suffering in the world to make the wrong done to animals seem small and even insignificant.'' Matthew Scully goes on and says perhaps that is part of the animal's role among us, to awaken humility and compassion. We have the power, we have the rights, we have the dominion over animals; and that is precisely why I believe that the gentleman from New York's bill and the gentleman from South Carolina's bill is so important, because it will be the first time that I know of that we have had a debate in the United States Congress on this important issue facing our old friend. At the horse park in Lexington, Kentucky, there is an inscription that says, ``Civilization was built on the back of a horse.'' So we are going to have a debate in this Congress on whether or not a French company and a Belgian company should violate Texas State law to slaughter our horses to export to Belgium, Italy, France, and Japan horse meat for human consumption, particularly when you consider that horses have never been a part of the food chain in our country. As we approach the midnight hour and these Special Orders come to a close, I want to once again reiterate that a lot of what has happened on this legislation was the result of what happened to the horse Ferdinand in Japan at Arrow Stud Farm. Under the continued leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the 214 cosponsors as of today of this legislation and Senators John Ensign and Mary Landrieu and the other Senators who have introduced this legislation on the Senate side, it is our intent to pursue our goal of making it illegal to slaughter horses in the U.S. for human consumption.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Freeman's Fur Shop, an outstanding small business with a unique history in my hometown of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Freeman's Furs is owned and operated by Mr. Paul Shafranck. The business has operated for 68 years. Freeman's was founded by the late Howard Freeman when he fashioned a fox fur neckpiece for his wife. The business expanded to an internationally known landmark. For many years, Howard Freeman trapped many of the animals and then designed and made the coats. Upon his death in 1994, his son, Lindsay, took over the business along with his daughter, Ann Freeman Peace. In 1997, Freeman sold the business to Shafranck. Freeman's Furs has offered fur design, creation, storage, cleaning and repairs to customers from around the world. The quality of work performed and customer service provided is a testament to Howard Freeman. Freeman Fur's will cease operation in April, 2004. Mr. Speaker, Freeman's Fur Shop is beloved by its faithful customers and all who walk through its doors. It is a shining example of the significance and economic impact a small business can have on a community. I am proud to bring the accomplishments of Freeman's Fur Shop and its employees to the attention of this House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize nominees for the Regional Academic All-Star Team from the Pennyroyal region in western Kentucky. The regional Academic All-Star program's purpose is to recognize top academic scholars and performers. Students from Caldwell, Christian, Trigg and Todd Counties of Kentucky were nominated based upon their academic performance in seven disciplines: English, foreign language, journalism, mathematics, science social studies and the creative and performing arts. The students are judged on their core academic score, the curriculum of the student, their grade point average, academic honors earned, unique accomplishments and achievements, extracurricular activities both school related and outside school activities, employment history, and an autobiographical essay. Mr. Speaker, education is the foundation upon which we reach our human potential. Students in my district are developing their talents, furthering their education and pursuing their aspirations in life through programs like the Academic All-Star program. Encouragement and recognition develop confidence and achievement among young Americans-- the future leaders of our country. The following students have been nominated for their academic excellence: Adam Christopher Denison, Bethany Sue East, Caitlin Jo Hill, Carla Rae Cunningham, Daniel Sean McBride, James William Benson, Stephen Patrick Russell, Amber Mae Cooper, Joshua Gregory Berkley, and Layton Ashley Noel. Michelle Denise Graham, Stephanie Dawn Hedgepath, Chaz Ganster, Elizabeth Woodward Starling, Jenna Anne Foltz, Jennifer Elaine Martin, Jessica Leigh Monroe, Jessica Renae Durbin, Rosa Ramsey Groves, and Andrew Bryan McGregor. Christine Caylin Mudrick (Caylin), Elizabeth Marie Silva Collier, Justin Bennet Sedlak, Jr., Lauren Melissa McCormick, Sarah Jane Bodell, Signe Jordan McCullagh, Adam Christopher Denison, Evan Lee Allen, Joquela S. Quarles, and Lacey Dyan McGinnis. Meagan Kay Bush, Stacy Watkins, Evan Turner Roberts, Justin Bennet Sedlak, Jr., Leigh Ellen West, Lindsey Bell Bostick, Sara Elizabeth Downs, Sarah Savannah Hughes (Savannah), Ashley Lauren Russell, and Benton Russell Avery Farmer. Holly Marie Sisk, Stephen Wesley Boren, Thabbet Hassan Abukuppeh (Tad), Aaron Lewis Nelson, Clifton Ross Martin, John Christian Cooke Mahre (Chris), Julianna Leigh Staples, Rebekah Elizabeth Logan, and Savannah Rose Galloway. Mr. Speaker, these students embody the spirit, commitment and sacrifice that we all should strive for in our daily lives. I am proud to represent them in my District. I extend my thanks to these students for their efforts, and I am proud to bring their accomplishments to the attention of this House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize David Ryan Clouse of Hopkinsville, KY, for his selection as a student delegate to represent Kentucky at the 42nd Annual United States Senate Youth Program. Ryan was one of two students chosen to participate from the State of Kentucky for this prestigious honor. Selection as a delegate is an honor few receive. Students are required to be involved in student organizations, community activities and achieve academically. Ryan has excelled in academics. He has served as an officer and member in the various organizations in his school. He participated in the Governor's Cup Program. He has been a valuable member of his schools soccer team, basketball team and tennis team. Ryan has been involved in his church and community. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent David Ryan Clouse in my District. I extend my congratulations to him for his achievements, and I am proud to bring his accomplishments to the attention of this House.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Speaker, I think it is certainly appropriate that we at this time are speaking about the nation of Turkey. As the gentleman from Florida so eloquently stated, Turkey has been a loyal ally of the U.S., a member of NATO, a Muslim secular country that is a great model for a Muslim democracy. Turkey has played a vital role and I think can play a much more vital role in helping with peace in the Middle East. They have a great relationship with the country of Israel. They have a large Jewish population and, as I said earlier, it is a 99 percent Muslim country. We all abhor violence of any kind, and these acts of terrorism that seem to become more frequent throughout the world are causing all of us great heartache: the families that are involved, the suffering that is involved, the senselessness of the acts. So I stand here today simply to express my condolences to the families in Turkey, to the nation of Turkey, and remind the American people, once again, that Turkey is a valuable and important ally of the United States. We have common interests, and I am quite confident that our nations will continue to work for peace in the Middle East and, by acts of goodness and kindness, will eventually be able to overcome these random acts of violence, this planned terrorism around the world.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are having this debate this evening on such an important topic as Medicare. It is quite obvious that this bill is not an ideal bill. There are shortcomings in this bill. But this Congress for 5 or 6 years has been having discussions about providing a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, and that is precisely what this legislation does. The previous speaker talked about the importance of being able to reimport drugs from Canada. If we pass this bill, those seniors who need it most are not going to have to be concerned about the cost of medicine because if they want to, and the option is theirs, they do not have to, they can stay with the Medicare program they have today; but if they want to, they can come into this program, and if their income is 135 percent of the poverty level and below, they do not have to pay a monthly premium to participate. They do not have to pay any deductible to participate, and their only out-go would be a $1 co-pay for a generic drug, a $3 co-pay for a brand-name drug, and they can reimport all the drugs they want to; and it is not going to be less than that. So they are going to be better off under this program than they would be worrying about reimportation of drugs from Canada. If they are 135 percent of the poverty level and higher, instead of paying a $1 co-pay, they are going to pay a $2 co-pay. Instead of paying a $3 co-pay for brand names, they are going to pay a $5 co-pay for brand names. And I can tell the Members, the 35 counties that I represent in rural western Kentucky, the senior citizens there are going to be delighted with this bill because most of them are going to be able to walk away and not pay a premium, not pay a deductible, but have a prescription drug program that they can afford. It is not the ideal bill. There are some shortcomings. There is no question about that. I would also like to make this comment about this argument about privatization, which I think is frequently used to scare senior citizens, and I understand that. We all like to play that game. But I think it is important to know that under the existing Medicare program that has been in effect for all these years, HCFA already contracts with private companies in all 12 regions of this country to administer the program. So we are already dealing with private companies. There is nothing unusual about that. But it does sound good if they want to try to scare senior citizens. But overall I think this bill is a good beginning. And I would make one other comment, although I certainly do not agree with Newt Gingrich on everything, but people always talk about his comment of letting it wither on the vine. He was not talking about Medicare as a program. He was talking about HCFA, the entity that administers Medicare; and if people talk to any health care provider in this country, whether it be a physician, hospital, whatever, they will complain and express concern about the bureaucracy at HCFA on reimbursements, on all sorts of issues. I have had more than one town meeting in my district with health care providers complaining about the bureaucracy at HCFA. Obviously, HCFA is trying to do a good job, but Newt Gingrich's comment was simply about trying to modernize it to provide a better program, more efficient program, more productive program with a faster reimbursement for health care providers. So, Mr. Speaker, I know it has been a difficult chore, and I know that the Democrats on the other side have contributed to this program. They have worked to help us devise a program that is a good starting point, and I think this is a good starting point, and I think the thing that really tells the story about this program, about this bill that we probably will be voting on tomorrow, is that the AARP, which is the premier senior citizen association in the country, is now endorsing this bill, it is my understanding. So I hope that we will vote against the gentleman from Washington's motion to instruct, and I hope that tomorrow we can pass this bill and provide our seniors with a prescription drug bill that they will be able to afford.