July, 14, 2003 FLOOR DEBATE REGARDING DOWNED ANIMAL AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman:

Add at the end (before the short title) the following new section:
SEC. __. None of the funds appropriated or made available by this Act may be used to approve for human consumption pursuant to the Federal Meat Inspection Act any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are unable to stand or walk unassisted at a slaughtering, packing, meat-canning, rendering, or similar establishment subject to inspection at the point of examination and inspection, as required by section 3(a) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(a)).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to introduce the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment which would prohibit the USDA from expending any funds to approve meat from downed animals for human foods.

This, Mr. Chairman, is a downed animal. Downed animals are livestock who collapse, often for unknown reasons. They are unable to walk, unable to stand. Animals such as these are inhumanely dragged, very often by ropes and by chains, into stockyards where they often spend days lying in their own feces. They are sometimes covered in E. coli and are at high risk for illnesses such as mad cow disease.

The smart and humane businesses in this country, such as McDonald's and Wendy's and Burger King, all refuse to accept the meat of downed animals. They recognize how harmful it could be to their industry and what a looming disaster it would be to this country if mad cow disease entered our food chain. The USDA, as a matter of fact, prohibits the use of downed animals in our own school lunch programs throughout this country; and yet these downed animals such as this find their way into our food supply and are on the shelves in our supermarkets, our butcher shops, and our restaurants. If these downed animals are not safe enough and not adequate enough for the fast food restaurants or for our children in school, why are they put on America's supermarket shelves?

The answer, Mr. Chairman, has nothing to do with cows. It has to do with pigs. It has to do with greed. For the sake of making a few bucks, getting us to eat a crippled cow such as this can cripple the entire industry. Less than 1 percent of all animals are downed animals, not a big dent in the industry.

Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, a mad cow was discovered across our border in Alberta, Canada. Their meat standards are almost as good as ours, and that one mad cow was a downed

[Page: H6652] GPO's PDF <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=H6652&position=all>
animal. That discovery is not a coincidence. Study after study after study shows that downed cows are much more predisposed to having mad cow disease than the general population. The USDA has conducted a study and has concluded that if mad cow disease ever did occur in the United States, it would most likely be found among downed cattle than the general cattle population.

Just one infected mad cow crippled all of Canada's meat industry. We do not buy cows from Canada anymore. They are absolutely devastated. Canada should be a lesson to us. We must pass this legislation.
The bipartisan amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and I introduce today will improve the safety of our food supply and prevent animals such as these from entering our food chain. Last year, we passed this measure in Congress. This year, we have 115 sponsors of this legislation. It is absolutely imperative that we pass this. In the name of food safety, in the name of the humane treatment of animals, please pass the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment.

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea from a public health safety standpoint. The way that we inspect animals to prevent animals with anything from BSE to a whole host of other diseases from getting into the food chain is through the process whereby the animals are slaughtered. When they show up at the slaughterhouses, that is where the veterinarians are on hand to inspect them and to make sure that animals that are not healthy do not get into the food chain. They are pulled off the line at that point in time and the public has that safety assurance.

If we require that downed animals are euthanized on the farm and never get to that point in the processing system, we are going to drive this whole process literally underground.

The problem that we have is that the animals will then be buried on the farm or disposed of in some other way, perhaps even put into the food chain illegitimately, because that farmer has absolutely no incentive to do anything otherwise. It is a cost to them, and there is no compensation to them whatsoever.

So if you have an animal that has BSE, and we certainly hope that that never occurs in this country, but if it does, we will never know it if this amendment passes because that animal will never get to the veterinarian to be inspected to determine whether or not it has that illness.

Therefore, this is a very, very bad idea. The humane thing to do for the animal, to have it euthanized at a place in the process where the veterinarians are on hand and can properly inspect it, is the way to go here. It is very important that when animals are downed we find out why they are downed. It might simply be a dislocated hip or something else that is no danger to human consumption, but if it is an animal that has a serious disease, we want to know if that animal has spread that disease to other animals in the area, whether other animals on that farm have the same problem.
[Time: 15:00]

If they never get to the veterinarian, we will never find that out; and, therefore, this will become a very serious human health problem if we adopt this amendment.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a very, very important point. Unfortunately, he refers to previous legislation that the gentleman and I discussed.
What we are doing here is we are not preventing the animal from getting there. We are preventing it from entering the food supply so people do not eat these crippled, diseased, pathetic animals as part of their hamburger or steak that they unwittingly buy at the supermarket. This just prevents the use of any funds from approving this animal from entering the food supply. It does not prevent the animal from being tested. It does not prevent the animal from being researched.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's point does not cure the problem. And the reason it does not is that there is still a lack of incentive for that farmer to ship that animal to the veterinarian if he knows before it ever gets on his truck that he will not be able to get any compensation for it, any certification for it no matter what is wrong with the animal.

As I indicated, if the animal simply has a dislocated hip or some other ailment that does not make the animal unsound for human consumption, then the farmer has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to ever get it to the slaughter house.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished ranking member of the authorizing committee.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I will be glad to yield to my friend from New York at any time on the point, but I think some of the points the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman GOODLATTE) made need to be reemphasized.
Existing statutes and regulations are sufficient to address the issue of preventing conscious, nonambulatory livestock from being inhumanely handled prior to slaughter.

Now, there are differences of opinion as to what is ``inhumanely handled,'' and I respect those who have a different opinion than I have. Now, Federal and State veterinarians at slaughter establishments are best capable of identifying and segregating suspect animals from entering the food chain. FSIS personnel verify that disabled livestock handling procedures are carried out to ensure that nonambulatory animals are set apart and humanely slaughtered. That is what the chairman was pointing out will no longer happen if the gentleman's amendment is passed.

In accordance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, FSIS inspectors conduct anti-mortem inspection of livestock. Unconscious, disabled livestock cannot receive anti-mortem inspection and must be condemned and disposed of in accordance with FSIS regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Non-ambulatory, disabled livestock that have not received anti-mortem inspection and cannot be humanely moved must be humanely condemned before they may be transported from the slaughter establishment's premises.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I should point out that the gentleman, who is a distinguished leader and authority in this area and someone for whom I have the greatest respect, is absolutely right. However, what we are dealing here with is an amendment that does not disrupt this process whatsoever. All of those things can and should take place from the time the animal is grazing to the time it is in the yard to the time it is being shipped and even prior to slaughter.

The only thing that we prevent is the animal from being consumed by the American public. Every single one of us has constituents that eat meat. Some of us have the majority of our constituents. And the American people, 0 percent of them say they will not eat the product of a downed animal such as this.

Mr. STENHOLM. And that sick animal will never find its way into the food chain under the current law that we are enforcing today.

BSE was talked about. It is extremely critical that we do not create a situation in which downed animals which have very good food value, simply because they may have had a dislocated hip or a broken leg still have food value, not be discouraged from coming to the marketplace, which is exactly what the gentleman intends to do; and I respect his desire for doing that. But in the handling of livestock, it is extremely important that livestock continue to be handled as we are doing it under FSIS, particularly with the BSE question.

It is extremely important that BSE-suspect animals are tested; and, accordingly, right now USDA's aggressive BSE surveillance system targets these animals, the ones we are talking about for testing. During fiscal year 2001, USDA tested 5,272 head. In fiscal 2002, 19,990 head, more than 40 times the internationally recognized standard for appropriate surveillance for a country that has never detected BSE within its borders.

It is extremely important that the suspect animals get into the inspection system. But I fear because of those who believe that any animal that cannot walk should be immediately destroyed wherever it is, this will do some real harm potentially to the future of the very food safety issues that the gentleman is trying to correct.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should know that we do not prevent the animal from being tested anywhere, including right up to the slaughter house. We do not deny funds for the testing of the animal. We want the animals to be tested. We want to make a determination as to where the animal came from if he does test positive for mad cow disease or any other kind of disease. What we are saying is that we are going to deny funds under this amendment to those animals, such as this one here, from entering the food chain and from being consumed by my constituents or your constituents.

Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, the chairman has been overly generous in sharing of his limited time with me.

I repeat, the picture the gentleman is showing, that sick animal will never find its way into the food chain. Period.

It does no service to this institution to continue to show that.

This amendment would create a disincentive to producers. The gentleman does not understand the cattle business as many in this body do. I understand the sentiments in what you are trying to correct, but the amendment would have a totally different result.

I thank the chairman for his generosity.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has 12 minutes left.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I rise in strong support of the amendment by my very dedicated colleague from New York. His amendment would prohibit for human consumption any meat or meat food product derived from a downed animal.

I might say to my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a recognized leader in agriculture, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has already as part of its procedures adopted regulations that ban the purchase of meat from downed animals by its own procurement agencies. So let there be no mistake that our Department of Agriculture believes that it already has the authority to take that action internally.

Let me also say that the Department has estimated that nationally about 190,000 animals every year get so sick that they are unable to stand or walk and they are dragged to slaughter facilities and many of them end up in our food supply. But only about 5 percent of those animals are tested for serious diseases such as mad cow disease.

Now, many probably know that the recent mad cow found in Canada was a downed animal; that the president of the Alberta Beef Producers remarked about ``cows too sick to walk, too sick to stand have no business being part of the food system. This animal should have never left the farm.''

A 2001 study from Germany found that downed animals were anywhere from 10 to 240 times more likely to test positive for BSE than were ambulatory cows. And we all agree, I think we all know, that downed cattle have a higher risk of having BSE, and we should not be sending these animals to slaughter where they may ultimately end up on somebody's dinner table.

Farm Sanctuary used the Freedom of Information Act to analyze USDA slaughter house records for 938 facilities from 1999 through June 2001. They found 73 percent of downed animals passed for human consumption while 27 percent were condemned. But startlingly, among the downed animals approved for human consumption, included afflictions such as gangrene, malignant cancers and pneumonia. These were common.

I think the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) proposal is, why are we sending these animals that should be euthanized and disposed of to auction markets and slaughter houses where they will contaminate healthy animals and, indeed, human health?

The August 2001 issue of ``Dairy Herd Management'' named downed animals as the most important area where the industry needs to clean up its act. So I want to rise in support of the Ackerman amendment. I think the gentleman is moving us all, moving the country toward a better standard, a higher standard. The USDA has already recognized that standard and adopted on its own meat procurement practices. I want to thank the gentleman for helping move America ahead. I think this amendment's consideration today will go a long way in helping to clean up this problem for the American people.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has 8 1/2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 6 minutes remaining.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) because she is responding to exactly the same amendment that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has informed us he has modified from provisions that he has offered earlier as well.
The gentlewoman wants to keep the animals from ever being shipped to the slaughter house. The slaughter house is where the inspection takes place to determine whether or not the animal has BSE. So if the gentlewoman accomplishes her goal, she is defeating that purpose.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has said he has modified his amendment so that only funds cannot be expended for the purpose of certifying the animal for processing. That has still the same problem. The farmer will have no incentive to get that animal to the place where the veterinarians are so that inspection can take place. If we had billions of dollars to have veterinarians go to every farm, maybe they could accomplish their goal; but we do not have that kind of money. The farmers do not have the money. They are not going to spend it. So they would be risking public health by refusing to have the process work the way it was designed. Have the animals go to the slaughter house, be inspected.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me respond, first to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend, I may not be in the cattle business; but I can tell a good steak when I see one. This does not a good steak make, and that is exactly the point.

And in answer to both questions to both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), there is a greater picture that some might argue about testing anywhere along the process and euthanizing the animal prior to reaching the marketplace. That is all well and good, and we could argue those points; but that is not what this amendment is all about. This amendment does not prevent any of that from happening.

This specific amendment does not touch any of the testing procedures.

We want the animals tested. There are those who even have a greater picture; and they would say, let us not eat meat at all. That is not the purpose of this gentleman, and that is not the purpose of this amendment.
This amendment says after you go through all of these processes and all of these wonderful things that are in place right now, why jeopardize it all for the sake of making a few bucks and jeopardize the entire cattle industry, a major American industry, for the sake of making a few bucks off a couple of crippled animals, less than .63 percent of the entire population. It makes no sense.

One mad cow has closed them down in Canada. Do we want that to happen in the United States?

There is a humanitarian issue here for those of us who appreciate the inhumane treatment of animals, and there is a public-safety issue. And if nothing else, for goodness sake, look at the public-safety issue and look at what happened to Canada. Granted, we do a little bit better job, we think; but one mad cow is all it will take to shut down our industry.

[Time: 15:15]

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I will not use the full time. I just wanted to say to my good friend from Virginia, the chairman of the authorizing committee, that the normal way, place the animal would be downed would be at the slaughterhouse anyway.

The point we are trying to make is do not put it in the food chain. That is the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) amendment which he has not changed. So I just wanted to clarify that, and I also am concerned that at that slaughter facility that that diseased animal not contaminate the other animals. So there is a tremendous burden on that slaughterhouse, but the point of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) argument and amendment is do not put that sick animal in the food chain.

I support his amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I greatly appreciate the points that the authorizers have made today in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has 6 minutes remaining.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it is imperative that we distinguish between sick animals and downer animals. There is a big difference, and I think the author of the amendment and some of the arguments made, including by my good friend from Ohio, is tending to mix up downers and sick.

We all agree sick animals have no place in our food chain, period; and I would submit under current law that is a occurring 99.9999 percent of the time. No one can be perfect.

On the question of BSE, I worry about us continuing to be able to reassure the American public since in 2002 we tested 19,990 cattle, 40 times the international standard, but of those 19,990, 14,000 were downer animals. It is critical that we continue to look at downers to make sure they are not sick and remove them from the food chain, but when we read the gentleman's amendment today, I really respectfully say it would create a disincentive for producers to send downers to market.

We agree with the basic statement of keeping the animals out of the food chain that are sick. It is a question of how we best do it. Therefore, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment in the belief that it will not accomplish what we all agree we need to do, and that is keep sick animals out but allow downer animals that can be humanely consumed to continue to be presented so we can make that determination as to whether they are sick or consumable.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's sentiments and how articulately he presents them. We have a great deal of sympathy with what he is trying to accomplish, and one of the things the industry is trying to accomplish is to squeeze every nickel out of every head of cattle regardless of whether it is ambulatory, nonambulatory or anything else. There should be a disincentive for people bringing animals that are sick or diseased or nonambulatory to the market for the sake of making a couple of dollars on 1/2 of 1 percent of the entire cattle industry in America.
The fact that we do 40 times more testing and a better job than the average in the world, I am not impressed by that argument that we do better than places like Saudi Arabia and the Sudan and other places which bolster our numbers in how good we are.

Take a look at Canada. They do 40 percent better than the rest of the world, also. It took one mad cow who was a downed animal to shut down the entire industry. The industry here needs to be saved from itself. For the sake of that 1/2 of 1 percent, they are jeopardizing their entire business.

The humane aspect of this, I do not want to hold these pictures up continuously for the rest of this debate nor shall I, but the point is, the pictures are troubling. They are disturbing. Nobody likes to look at that. But if we think we go to the supermarket and buy some chopped meat and our own hamburger out of meat that McDonald's would not touch, out of meat that Wendy's would not touch, out of meat that Burger King would have no part of, out of meat that the USDA says, my goodness, keep this off the plates and tables of our schoolchildren as they have their lunches, it is unfair, it is unsafe, that the industry would say let us sneak this in and have these animals be put up for sale for the unsuspecting American public.

According to a Zogby poll, four out of every five Americans has said they would not touch this meat if they knew it came from a downed animal, but they do not know that it came from a downed animal, Mr. Chairman.

What we are doing here with this amendment is we are saying that the animal can be tested on the farm, it can be tested where it falls, it can be tested when it is in transit, it can be tested in the stockyards, it can be tested right up to the point of slaughter, do all the testing, make the determination, keep the statistics, but do not then put it into the food supply for the American people. Food safety demands better, and humanity to animals demands better.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just a very important point, I think bovine spongiform encephalitis, BSE, has never been found in the United States. We have the most strict meat inspection in the world, and if we pass this resolution the danger is that we complicate the inspection of those downed animals. Downed animals in this country do not go into the human food chain without a thorough health safety investigation.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

We are not compromising the testing system at all. Test to your heart's content. Test and retest and double test. We agree with that. But, in the end, after all the tests, do not subject the American people to eating these downed animals.

On the gentleman's second point, that in the history of this country we have never found mad cow disease, I just want to point out that until one mad cow, who was a downed animal, came along, Canada had never found a mad cow in their country either. Look what has happened to them. Do not let it happen here in the name of food safety. In the name of the humane treatment of animals, do not allow that to happen here.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ackerman-LaTourette Amendment which would end the sale of ``downed animal meat'' for human consumption. Simply put, this Amendment would take livestock that is too diseased, too weak, or too injured to even stand on its own feet out of our food chain.

American families do not want to put downed animal meat products on their dinner tables, and they do not want to worry about whether the meat products purchased from a restaurant contains meat from downed animals. As a matter of fact, new animal welfare standards followed by burger-giants McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's have ended the purchase of meat from downed animals in their food products. I applaud these moves and America's consumers applaud them as well.

Common sense, as well as scientific data, says that the meat taken from a downed animal is unfit for human consumption--its risk of bacterial contamination and other diseases is much much higher than the meat taken from a healthy animal. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) records show that downed animals are often afflicted with gangrene, malignant lymphoma, pneumonia, and other serious illnesses. According to the Food and Drug Administration downed animals are responsible for half of the drug residue found in meat because these animals are often very sick animals, and therefore, are often receiving a variety of drug treatments. Why would anyone want to take a chance and eat this meat?

Not only would this legislation remove tainted meat from the American marketplace, it would help improve the treatment of animals at auctions and slaughterhouses. Most downed animals are old dairy cows, crippled veal calves, and sometimes injured beef cattle. These downed animals, too weak to stand up on their own, are often shocked with electricity, moved with bulldozers, kicked and dragged, all in the effort to move them along the assembly lines to be slaughtered.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation has made great strides in food processing and food production over many years. We've come a long way since the publication of Upton Sinclair's famous century-old work, ``The Jungle.'' But there's still a lot of needless cruelty that goes on in these places. Upton Sinclair wrote back then that the animals were strung up one by one in a ``cold-blooded, impersonal way, without a pretense of apology.'' This still occurs today.

For instance, cows with broken legs are often left for hours or even days without food and water, let alone veterinary care. There is no excuse for this cruel and inhumane treatment in a civilized society. For the sake of our society, our animals, and those who eat meat products, the practice of slaughtering and consuming downed animals must be brought to an end.

Americans rightly do not want to eat meat from downed animals nor do they want to see downed animals cruelly treated the way they are at our slaughterhouses and animal auctions. Five months after the publication of ``The Jungle,'' President Theodore Roosevelt and Congress took action by passing the first ``Pure Food and Drug Act'' and the first ``Meat Inspection Act.''

Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to act again. Americans want animals to be treated properly, and they want their food to be safe. I urge Members to support and vote for the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Ackerman Downed Animal Amendment.

Animals too weak, from sickness or injury, to stand or walk are routinely pushed, kicked, dragged, and prodded with electric shocks at auctions and intermediate markets, in an effort to move them to slaughter.
There is no excuse for this unnecessary torment.

The Ackerman amendment will protect these downed animals by discouraging their transport to livestock markets and requiring they be humanely euthanized.

Some greedy individuals know livestock sold for human consumption will bring a higher price than livestock sold for other purposes. To them, the money is more important than the suffering of the animals. In moving these animals to auctions and other markets, these individuals display a cruel disregard for the animals. They also ignore the fact that meat from these animals may be unfit for consumption.

Downed animals do not deserve this kind of cruel treatment, and consumers do not deserve to be subjected to the risk of buying contaminated meat products.
[End Insert]

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) will be postponed.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.