[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 109 (Thursday, September 7, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6307-H6311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 503, AMERICAN HORSE SLAUGHTER 
                             PREVENTION ACT

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 981 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 981

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 503) to amend the Horse Protection Act to 
     prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, 
     receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of 
     horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human 
     consumption, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour and twenty 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader 
     and the Minority Leader or their designees. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment shall 
     be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides 1 
hour and 20 minutes of general debate, equally divided and controlled 
by the majority leader and the minority leader. The rule also provides 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Horse meat is generally not consumed by people in the United States, 
but more than approximately 90,000 were slaughtered for human 
consumption in 2005. Virtually all of those horses were slaughtered for 
export and sent to the largest markets for that product, to countries 
such as France and Belgium, where it is commonly served to humans. 
Another 30,000 were transported from the United States to Canada and 
Mexico for slaughter. A number of States currently have laws that 
prohibit slaughter or facilitating the slaughter of horses for human 
consumption, but there is not a nationwide ban.
  Last year during consideration of the fiscal 2006 agriculture 
appropriations bill, my good friends, distinguished Members Mr. Sweeney 
and Mr. Whitfield, offered an amendment to that bill that would have 
prohibited the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for slaughter plant and 
horse meat inspections, effectively ending the practice. The amendment 
passed the House with bipartisan support by a strong 269-158 vote. A 
similar amendment also passed the Senate. However, horse slaughter 
plants petitioned the USDA to allow fee-for-service inspections whereby 
the plants pay for the inspections. The USDA granted the request. To 
get around the limitation amendment, horse slaughter plants made that 
petition to the USDA to allow for inspections.
  The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act would prohibit an 
individual from slaughtering a horse for human consumption in the 
United States and would also prevent the transportation of horses from 
the

[[Page H6308]]

United States to Canada or Mexico for the purpose of slaughter for 
human food.
  This legislation, H.R. 503, was introduced by Mr. Sweeney and Mr. 
Whitfield. I commend both of them for their hard work on this issue, an 
issue that obviously is very important to them and their constituents.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida, for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the rule before the House would make in 
order H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This bill 
has the support of 203 bipartisan co-sponsors, myself included. Passing 
this bill will end the cruel and barbaric practice of horse slaughter. 
It will ensure that horses are treated humanely up until their deaths, 
which is a goal that both supporters and opponents of the legislation 
can support. It will also improve conditions for living horses.
  In my home State of California, for example, we have experienced no 
increase in cases of horse abuse or neglect since we banned their 
slaughter in 1998. Horse theft cases in California have declined by 35 
percent since then as well.
  Simply put, horses are an integral part of our country's culture and 
history. They do not deserve to be slaughtered in the brutal conditions 
which they must currently endure before death. American horses deserve 
better treatment.
  But the American people deserve better treatment as well. 
Unfortunately, the Republican majority in Congress appears focused 
exclusively on issues which do little to improve the lives of 
Americans.
  A few days ago, we celebrated Labor Day. Yet it is clear that people 
who work for a living have very little to celebrate. The minimum wage 
remains unchanged. Our constituents face ever-rising energy prices. 
Seniors continue to be burdened with high costs for prescription drugs. 
College graduates are saddled with debt. Other young people cannot 
afford to attend college at all. And nearly 5 years to the day after 
September 11, our Nation is still not secure.
  These are some of the pressing and critical problems the American 
people deal with on a daily basis. Congress could easily devote an 
entire week to each issue, and yet we find ourselves procrastinating. 
Instead of addressing these challenges that confront our constituents, 
real issues that impact real people, the majority has chosen to 
authorize commemorative coins. This Congress cannot bring itself to 
allow a clean vote to help hardworking Americans by raising the minimum 
wage, though not for lack of Democratic proposals to do so. My 
colleague, Congressman George Miller, has introduced a bill that will 
raise the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, and 
Congressman Hoyer's amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill will 
do the same.
  Unfortunately, these sensible proposals to give working families a 
boost have either been stalled by the Republican leadership or loaded 
with poison pills to ensure that Americans go yet another year without 
a minimum wage increase. We owe it to the hardworking voters who send 
us to Washington to increase the minimum wage before we adjourn. 
Instead, the leadership has turned our attention to horses.
  The majority also refuses to take action to combat skyrocketing 
energy costs. Democrats have advocated for an innovative and strategic 
national energy policy, one which rolls back tax breaks for oil 
companies and invests the savings in alternative fuel sources. Not only 
will such action lower energy costs over the long term, but it will 
also help our Nation break our dependence on foreign oil.
  The American people deserve an energy policy that is responsible, 
innovative, and independent. Dozens of promising proposals for such a 
policy have been introduced, proposals which could be brought to the 
floor today. However, the leadership has decided instead to use one of 
our few remaining legislative days to debate horses.
  Even before this energy crisis, the steady rise in health costs 
threatened to drive many middle-class families out of our health care 
system altogether. Most of the 3 million people who have lost health 
coverage since 2002 make over $50,000 per year, and some make over 
$75,000 per year. This figure is frightening, for it indicates that 
high insurance costs are affecting more and more Americans. 
Additionally, seniors have already begun to hit the ``doughnut hole'' 
in the Medicare prescription drug program, which has forced them to 
bear thousands of dollars in unexpected costs.
  The Democratic plan for the future gives the Federal Government the 
freedom to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. It also 
provides millions of American families with urgently needed health 
insurance. We owe it to our constituents to reform the health care 
system to make it more affordable before we adjourn.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this Congress has done little to help 
American seniors. Sadly, younger Americans have not fared much better. 
The Republican leadership has left our Nation's students saddled with 
ever-growing amounts of student loan debt.
  Democrats have offered a new direction for higher education, centered 
on expanding Pell grants and restoring the $12 billion in cuts to 
student aid which Republicans passed earlier this year. This will ease 
the debt burden for recent graduates and put the dream of a college 
education within reach for more young Americans. We owe it to our 
students and to the families who support them to increase tuition 
assistance before we adjourn. However, the leadership has ignored this 
opportunity to make higher education accessible and affordable. 
Instead, the majority has decided to take another long weekend, with no 
votes scheduled on Monday or Friday.
  As we can see, the list of misplaced priorities in the 109th Congress 
is long. However, perhaps none is as disappointing or as dangerous as 
Congress's refusal to secure our homeland. The majority has refused to 
fully implement all the recommendations of the September 11 commission. 
In doing so, it has left unnecessary holes in national security and has 
failed to fulfill its primary responsibility to ensure America's 
safety.
  Before we adjourn for the year, Congress must secure our borders, and 
we must do more to protect our ports and airports. Democrats have 
offered legislation to do so, legislation which will also provide our 
first responders with the resources they need to respond to a terrorist 
attack or other national emergency.
  These proposals to protect American lives and families are on the 
table, and Democrats stand ready to pass them with the help of our 
Republican colleagues. And yet as we return from a month-long break, we 
have been presented with a paper-thin legislative agenda. This week's 
schedule illustrates how out of touch this Chamber's leadership is from 
American families and the problems they face every day.
  As a result, on the floor of the House of Representatives this week, 
we will focus on improving the welfare of America's horses. What we 
should be doing is improving the welfare of America's people.
  My Democratic colleagues and I have offered a new direction, a plan 
to raise the minimum wage, ease our reliance on foreign energy sources, 
lower prescription drug prices, make college more affordable, and 
strengthen our Nation's security to combat terrorists.

                              {time}  1030

  We will continue to fight to pass this package of urgent national 
legislation, and we await the cooperation of Republican colleagues to 
do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a prime author of this 
legislation.
  (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and its underlying bill. But I do want to respond to my friends on the 
other side

[[Page H6309]]

and their comments about the appropriateness of this particular piece 
of legislation, which I believe they support being on the floor here.
  Since 1979, there have been efforts and attempts and a struggle to 
bring this piece of legislation to the floor for open public debate so 
that we can flush out the fact from the fiction.
  And while I know and I believe over the next month we will be 
debating a number of important issues, like border security, like 
protecting this Nation, and our war on terror, this is a piece of 
legislation that is long overdue and needs to be discussed and needs to 
be disposed of in an appropriate fashion.
  As author of the legislation, I have worked tirelessly to bring it to 
the floor. What the bill does is it prohibits the shipping, 
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, 
selling or donation of horses or other equines for the slaughter for 
human consumption.
  It makes it impossible to do so in the United States but also 
prohibits the transport to Canada and Mexico. And some might ask, why 
is that important? Well, it is important for a number of reasons. The 
first and foremost is that it is one of the most inhumane, brutal, 
shady practices going on today in this Nation.
  It is important because more than 70 percent of the American people, 
at least every survey I have ever seen, support the notion that we 
ought to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption. It is 
important because a substantial number of States have outlawed this 
practice, yet because of a Federal court case, an injunction has been 
obtained in which the court has essentially said, unless Congress acts, 
this practice can go on despite the will of the people and the States 
involved.
  For years I had hoped for a fair and honest debate on this issue. We 
have been thwarted in that effort until now. Each year, 90,000 horses 
in the country are slaughtered and shipped overseas to Europe and Asia 
where they are served in restaurants as a delicacy, not as a necessity. 
I want this process stopped, and some of my colleagues in this chamber 
do not.
  This rule gives us the opportunity for that fair and open debate. I 
want to thank the Rules Committee and its chairman, Mr. Dreier, for 
that opportunity. However, I must stress that I have real concerns over 
the seven amendments that are possibly going to be introduced in the 
course of today's debate.
  I have concerns about it, because they are being introduced by people 
who have for a long time tried to stop this debate from happening in 
the first instance, and, therefore, then I would suggest that every one 
of these amendments are poison pills. Every one of these amendments are 
intended for one thing, that is to continue this practice, a practice 
that I do not want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, is subsidized by this 
Federal Government.
  Now, last year, my good friend from Florida pointed out, last year we 
passed with 269 votes an amendment in the ag appropriation bill that 
said taxpayer dollars should not be used for something the American 
people do not support in the first instance; should not be used to 
subsidize and continue this process.
  Despite passing that piece of legislation, the USDA and others 
thwarted our efforts to have the right thing happen.
  I would suggest to my colleagues that today we send a strong message: 
We end this practice. And, yes, let's get on with the other business of 
this House. But after many, many years, three decades of attempts, it 
is about time we passed this legislation and ended this practice.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, with energy costs at an 
all-time high in the United States, climate change threatening the 
future prosperity of our country and our planet, the Taliban regaining 
control in Afghanistan, Iraq in meltdown, the U.S. saddled with the 
largest debt in the history of the world, the real wages of average 
Americans in decline, 42 million Americans without health care 
insurance, and most of the 9/11 Commission recommendations to make 
America safe still not implemented by this Congress, it is unbelievable 
to me that we are spending this day on the horse meat bill.
  Now I commute 3,000 miles from California to Washington to serve the 
people, as we all do, to serve the people. And I am for the horsies, 
too. I will vote for it. We could have done it by consent. We could 
have done it on voice vote.
  I cannot believe that we are here today using the very limited time 
left to this Congress to deal with horse meat. Now, I hope that we can 
come to our senses, that the Republican leadership in this House will 
get a grip about what the American public needs us to do to serve their 
interests, to make sure that they are secure, both from an economic 
point of view, from international terrorism and to deal with the 
terrible disaster that has become Iraq and the disaster that is growing 
in Afghanistan.
  As I say, I am happy to vote for the horsie bill, but I am ashamed 
that that is all we are doing here today.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 has not received the support of 
any House committee and was, in fact, ordered to be reported 
unfavorably to the floor with the recommendation that it not pass by an 
overwhelming bipartisan majority of 37-3 of the Agriculture Committee. 
So, naturally, the Members of that committee are very sympathetic with 
those who do not want to hear this legislation today.
  The committee rejected this legislation because it has real concerns 
that eliminating the option of humane euthanasia at horse-processing 
facilities will do undeniable harm to the welfare of the 90,000 
unwanted horses per year that normally go this route. This rule makes 
in order several amendments that seek to correct some of the problems 
created by this bill.
  Since H.R. 503 leaves so many questions unanswered, the amendments 
are the only means to provide solutions to the problems. What happens 
to those 90,000 horses? H.R. 503 provides no answer to that question. 
Will they be guaranteed a safe, healthy future by the passage of H.R. 
503? Sadly, the answer is, no.
  H.R. 503 provides no provisions for the welfare of these unwanted 
horses. Proponents suggest that these 90,000 horses will not all 
necessarily be absorbed by the rescue facilities but will instead be 
sold to new owners or kept longer by their current owners. Many of the 
horses received by these processing plants are traditionally 
unserviceable, vivacious or behaviorally unacceptable in today's equine 
community.
  Holding on to a dangerous horse presents a potentially dangerous 
situation for the owner and his or her family. And selling the 
dangerous horse to an unwitting buyer is irresponsible. Obviously, the 
idea of sending a horse to a processing facility is not something any 
of us would like to think about. But for certain horses, these 
facilities, which are federally regulated with on-site U.S. Department 
of Agriculture veterinarians and humane euthanasia and processing 
conditions that are acceptable to the both the American Veterinary 
Medical Association and the American Association of Equine 
Practitioners provide a humane alternative to additional suffering or 
possibly dangerous situations.
  In order to ensure the welfare of these animals while they are alive, 
it is imperative that all humane disposal options be available. A 
responsible horse owner has the right to choose, and although we may 
not agree, we need to respect that right.
  H.R. 503 is a deceptive piece of legislation. Much of the 
misinformation that surrounds this bill has led many to believe it will 
accomplish things that it is not capable of achieving. Make no mistake 
about it: H.R. 503 will not prevent horses from dying. Proponents note 
that an alternative to sending the horses to processing facilities is 
to put the horse down on the farm. Apparently, the alternative to death 
is, well, death.
  The euthanasia practices employed at the three U.S. processing 
facilities meet the humane euthanasia guidelines of the American 
Veterinary Medical Association, and the regulations established by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture for humane euthanasia.

[[Page H6310]]

  The proponents of H.R. 503 are not arguing to keep horses alive or 
maintain a standard of care to ensure the horse's welfare; they are 
arguing about what happens to the meat once the animal has been 
euthanized. Furthermore, the humane treatment of these horses is 
regulated from the moment the decision is made to send the horse to the 
processing facility.
  The Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act regulates 
the transportation of the horses to the facility, preventing the 
transport or euthanasia of injured horses. This bill raises many 
questions about the welfare of horses but provides no solutions. If you 
care about animal warfare, vote against H.R. 503. If you care about 
horses, vote against this bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the rule governing the debate on H.R. 503 
makes in order seven amendments, all but one of which were filed late, 
beyond the deadline for amendment submission with the Rules Committee.
  What does this suggest? Normally, as we know, the Rules Committee is 
not enthused with late-filed amendments. As I recall, the majority on 
the Rules Committee has even used this as an excuse to not make certain 
amendments in order.
  So I think those of us on both sides of the aisle are being sent a 
signal here. And that message is that there is a concerted effort among 
some in power in this body to torpedo the pending legislation, H.R. 
503, by gaining the adoption of nefarious and ill-conceived amendments 
that would simply gut the legislation. This is the hand that we are 
being dealt. And it is apparently the one that we must play.
  With that said, I rise in support of the rule. I urge my colleagues, 
especially on my side of the aisle, to vote for it, so at the very 
least, we can have an open debate on the issue of horse slaughter in 
the United States, so that we can strive to keep hope alive.
  Americans do not eat horse flesh. The concept is repugnant to most 
Americans. Yet the merchants of slaughter will have us believe that it 
is fine and dandy to slaughter our horses for the sole purpose, the 
sole purpose, of sending their flesh overseas to support some warped 
demand among foreign diners for horse meat on their menus.
  Hear me and hear me now: America, the land of the brave and true, we 
are sending over 90,000 horses a year to slaughter. Stunned in the head 
if lucky, throats slit. Explain this to your children. Try to defend 
this to your constituents.
  I hope my colleague will vote for the rule, demonstrate that we will 
stand up to the likes of those who slaughter our horses for profit and 
slaughter our horses for power.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), who has done so much to 
bring this legislation to the floor.
  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.

                              {time}  1045

  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.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members to support the rule and the 
underlying bill. Congress should do the right thing for America's 
horses by ending the cruel practice of horse slaughter.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there are a larger set of priorities which must be 
addressed. The American worker deserves an increase in the minimum 
wage, and our Nation's seniors deserve lower prescription drug prices. 
Almost 5 years after September 11, failing to secure America's ports 
and airports is unconscionable.
  Democrats are committed to staying here until these priorities are 
accomplished. I would urge all my colleagues to join us in this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I also yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page H6311]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 351, 
nays 40, not voting 41, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 430]

                               YEAS--351

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                                NAYS--40

     Abercrombie
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chandler
     Conyers
     Costello
     DeFazio
     Ford
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lewis (GA)
     McGovern
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--41

     Andrews
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Cardin
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Doyle
     Drake
     Emanuel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Gallegly
     Green (WI)
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hobson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kirk
     Lewis (CA)
     McKinney
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Ney
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Owens
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sessions
     Strickland
     Towns
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1114

  Messrs. PETERSON of Minnesota, POMEROY, and KENNEDY of Rhode Island 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, due to circumstances beyond my 
control on Thursday, September 7, 2006, I regrettably missed the vote 
on H. Res. 981, a bill providing for consideration of H.R. 503, the 
Horse Protection Act.
  H. Res. 981 presents a reasonable rule that made several amendments 
in order, and allowed adequate time to have a full and fair debate on 
the underlying bill.
  In turn, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 981, so that we could 
begin to consider the underlying provisions of H.R. 503.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained 
and missed one rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 430.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 430, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________