[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PREVENTION OF EQUINE CRUELTY ACT OF 2008, AND THE ANIMAL CRUELTY
STATISTICS ACT OF 2008
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 6598 and H.R. 6597
----------
JULY 31, 2008
----------
Serial No. 110-201
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.govFOR
SPINE deg.
PREVENTION OF EQUINE CRUELTY ACT OF 2008, AND
THE ANIMAL CRUELTY STATISTICS ACT OF 2008
PREVENTION OF EQUINE CRUELTY ACT OF 2008, AND THE ANIMAL CRUELTY
STATISTICS ACT OF 2008
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 6598 and H.R. 6597
__________
JULY 31, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-201
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-830 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
MAXINE WATERS, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel
Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JULY 31, 2008
Page
THE BILLS
H.R. 6598, the ``Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008''...... 3
H.R. 6597, the ``Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008''......... 6
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security..................... 1
The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 8
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 10
WITNESSES
Ms. Liz Clancy Ross, Federal Policy Advisor, Animal Welfare
Institute, Alexandria, VA
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm, former Member of Congress,
Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 44
Prepared Statement............................................. 46
Mr. John Boyd, Jr., President, National Black Farmers
Association, Baskerville, VA
Oral Testimony................................................. 49
Prepared Statement............................................. 51
Mr. Douglas G. Corey, DVM, Adams, OR
Oral Testimony................................................. 55
Prepared Statement............................................. 57
Mr. Nicholas H. Dodman, DVM, Co-Founder, Veterinarians for Equine
Welfare and Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association,
Westborough, MA
Oral Testimony................................................. 61
Prepared Statement............................................. 64
Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, Humane Society of the
United States, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 76
Prepared Statement............................................. 79
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 10
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........ 111
Letter from the American Quarter Horse Association, and the
Animal Welfare Council submitted by the Honorable Louie
Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,
and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security.............................................. 113
Letter from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)... 118
Letter from Charles W. Stenholm, Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Bode
Matz PC, Attorneys at Law...................................... 121
Additional Material submitted by Wayne Pacelle, President and
CEO, Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC....... 123
Attachments to Prepared Statement of Wayne Pacelle, President and
CEO, Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC....... 232
PREVENTION OF EQUINE CRUELTY ACT OF 2008, AND THE ANIMAL CRUELTY
STATISTICS ACT OF 2008
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to noticel, at 9:34 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert
C. ``Bobby'' Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Delahunt, Gohmert,
Sensenbrenner, and Coble.
Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Majority Chief Counsel;
Jesselyn McCurdy, Majority Counsel; Mario Dispenza, (Fellow)
BATFE Detailee; Karen Wilkinson (Fellow) (AOC) Federal Public
Office Detailee; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member;
Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; Kimani Little, Minority
Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, Minority Staff Assistant.
Mr. Scott. The Committee will now come to order, and I am
pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on H.R.
6597, the ``Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008,'' and H.R.
6598, the ``Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008.''
According to many sources, animal cruelty is a widespread
problem in the United States; however, the Federal Government
does not collect specific data on animal cruelty crimes.
The scant data that we do collect is usually mixed in with
other crimes categories yielding little useful information.
H.R. 6597 will establish a comprehensive and consistent
collection of data on animal cruelty crimes providing
heightened awareness for the problem of animal cruelty and
assisting in determining whether legislation is necessary.
H.R. 6597 directs the Attorney General to make appropriate
changes in existing crime databases so that data on animal
cruelty crimes will be collected, made available to the public,
and Congress will have the necessary data for making
legislative decisions over this matter.
H.R. 6598, the ``Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of
2008,'' addresses the continuing problem of cruelty to horses
through slaughter for human consumption.
Despite the fact that in 2007, the last three horse
slaughter houses in the United States were closed as a result
of Federal court rulings, the practice of horse slaughter for
human consumption has not gone away.
After the closures of the U.S. horse slaughter houses, so-
called ``killer buyers'' simply increased horse exports to
Mexico and Canadian slaughter houses. They continued their
trade almost unimpeded by the closures, and their trade is
lucrative.
In some parts of the world horse meat is considered a
delicacy, creating a high demand. In fact, as of September
2007, the number of horses shipped to Mexico slaughter houses
has jumped 369 percent from the number shipped in 2006.
The number of horses exported to Canada for slaughter
increased by 46 percent. According to one study, four new horse
slaughter houses opened in Canada between 2007 and early 2008.
Opponents of these bills argue that horse slaughter
provides a service that, without horse slaughter, the number of
unwanted horses would increase dramatically, but this seems
unlikely.
Since 1990, the number of horses going to slaughter has
decreased from a high of more than 350,000 horses to just over
120,000 horses last year with no correlation--correlating
epidemic of unwanted horses.
Moreover, while data is scarce, many people believe that
the large number of horses sold to slaughter houses were not
unwanted but were stolen out of pastures and barns.
In support of this theory, the Humane Society reports that
when California banned horse slaughter in 1998, horse thefts
dropped by 34 percent.
Opponents also argue that horse slaughter for human
consumption is a form of humane euthanasia, but overwhelming
veterinary sources suggest otherwise. They find that most
humane euthanasia is via relatively painless chemical injection
which costs about $225.
Moreover, the slaughter process is very difficult to call
humane. The slaughter process generally starts with the
purchase of horses at a horse auction by the so-called ``killer
buyers.''
The horses then travel long distances, sometimes more than
24 hours, to the slaughter house with no water, food, or rest.
Procedures for killing the horses at slaughter houses vary,
but by all accounts, each is very disturbing.
H.R. 6598 responds to this problem. It criminalizes the
possession, shipment, transport, purchase, sale, delivery, or
receipt of any horse with the intent that it be slaughtered for
human consumption. The bill also criminalizes the shipment of
horse carcasses or flesh for the purpose of human consumption.
[The bills follow:]
Mr. Scott. It is my pleasure now to recognize the Ranking
Member of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge
Louie Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Chairman Scott.
Today's hearing will focus on H.R. 6598 as one of the
bills. This one would criminalize the sale, possession, and
transport of horses if a person knows the horse would be
slaughtered for human consumption.
We will also focus on a second bill, 6597, which seeks to
require the Department of Justice to collect data on animal
cruelty crimes.
It seems like there is a divergence of opinion on some of
these. I know some of us were very concerned in the last
Congress, when I was here for the first time, some of the
inhumane ways in which horses were being put down in the
slaughter houses; very disturbing.
But then we did have information in the--my friend,
Chairman Scott had mentioned the veterinary sources--and I know
we have a witness that will address that.
But, you know--then we got a letter from the American
Veterinary Medical Association last Congress saying they were
opposed to the bill to close the slaughter houses, actively
pursuing defeat and then gave some factual information from
their standpoint.
Just this week, we have gotten a letter from the American
Quarter Horse Association. It says it was addressed to Chairman
Scott and to me and Lamar Smith, and also from the Animal
Welfare Council dated July 30th.
They were--the Animal Welfare Council says they want to
express their serious concern regarding H.R. 6598. And then
they raised some of the concerns regarding the bill that they
have, and the American Quarter Horse Association expressed
their regret about being able to get here for the hearing that
they were not aware of until this week.
And so I would ask that those two letters from Animal
Welfare Council, and also the American Quarter Horse
Association be entered as part of the regard with unanimous
consent.
Mr. Scott. Without objection.
[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.]
Mr. Gohmert. But regarding the first bill, reading some of
the information from those sources, I have been concerned about
the reports that this could add to the already-growing number
of cruelty to and abandonment of horses.
And I know Ms. Ross addresses this issue in her testimony,
but, you know, anecdotally, I have been hearing those reports.
We are having more horses released in east Texas, people
telling me, well, they hear folks say they paid $300 to $500
for a horse and they can't afford to have a vet put him down.
And, you know, they can't afford to keep them going, and
the horse is one of the most important--most expensive animals
to keep as a pet if that is what you are going to do. So that
has caused some concern.
But under current law, transporting horses for slaughter to
foreign countries, such as Mexico or Canada, is legal and
regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The sponsors of the legislation seek to expand Congress'
jurisdiction and affect extra territory by adding this crime to
our Federal code, which others have raised, causes issues of
treaty violations.
Professor John Baker, of Louisiana State University Law
School, recently published a report on this trend--revisiting
the explosive growth of Federal crimes.
In his paper, Professor Baker writes that over the past 25
years, Congress has, on average, created over 500 new crimes
per decade. His research indicates there are at least 4450
Federal crimes in the U.S. Code, 452 of which being created
since 2007.
And one of the issues in so many of these new crimes is the
mens rea, or the requirement of intent or guilty mind. But one
concern is that 6598 would criminalize the possession,
transport, or sale of a horse that is intended to be
slaughtered that it may allow people to be pursued that did not
intend to commit a wrongful act.
We have heard many stories of these rising rates of horses
being abandoned because the owners could not afford to keep
them. And so we will be interested in hearing and gathering
more information on that.
It does make it difficult, like in my days as a judge, when
you have got two sides that paint completely different pictures
of getting down to what really is the true situation.
We previously heard heartrending information about how some
horse slaughter facilities, most or all, had to have been
inhumanely killing horses.
We have seen photographs, films, and, obviously, that is a
concern to anybody with a heart or eyes to see.
But my main concern with 6597, the second bill before the
Subcommittee today, is that it may not likely get us the
information that is being sought, though most of us would
really like to have that kind of data to know just how
significant a problem this is.
The bill requires the Department of Justice to change
existing crime databases so that data on all crimes of human--
or animal cruelty will be collected.
The department's crime database is a national repository
for fugitive warrants, criminal charges, and trial
dispositions. Currently, the department merely maintains a
database that state and local law enforcement officials upload
information into.
The department could create a category for animal cruelty
cases, and I would expect would do that, but state and local
law enforcement officials have no obligation to provide
statistics for category of cases.
A problem is that many animal cruelty charges are
misdemeanors, and law enforcement officials only provide
information on felonies.
Also, many animal cruelty cases are, apparently,
investigated by civil animal welfare agencies rather than
criminal law enforcement officials. These civil agencies do not
report statistics about the civil penalties they impose to the
department though it would be helpful information.
Many of these civil agencies also are barely able to meet
their obligations financially as it is and would not welcome
additional unfunded mandates.
I do welcome the witnesses and look forward to hearing
their testimony on these issues that remain so very difficult.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Conyers, Chairman of the full Committee?
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Chairman Scott and Judge
Gohmert.
I am going to ask unanimous consent to have my statement
put in the record.
Mr. Scott. With no objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary
Horse slaughter for human consumption has aptly been called by T.
Boone Pickens as ``America's Dirty Secret.''
In the United States, horses serve recreational and work purposes,
but not as a food source which explains why there are no horse
slaughterhouses in the United States.
Americans generally do not support the slaughter of horses for
human consumption. So why do we allow our to horses to be shipped to
other countries to face cruel and inhumane deaths so that they can
become horsemeat?
I want to put an end, once and for all, to the slaughter of
American horses for human consumption, and that is why I have
introduced two important pieces of legislation.
H.R. 6598, the ``Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008,'' will
make it illegal to slaughter American horses for human consumption.
And, H.R. 6597, the ``Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008,'' will
require the collection of data on all types of animal cruelty crimes.
I want to respond to three arguments that proponents of horse
slaughter for human consumption.
First, they claim that this practice is somehow humane. I ask, how
it can possibly be humane to take a horse from a farm or ranch,
transport it for more than 24 hours without food or water to a strange
location, force it into a ``killer shoot'' slippery with blood, stab it
repeatedly in the neck, hoist it up by one leg while it is still alive,
and then slit its throat to let it bleed to death. How is this practice
be anything but inhumane?
Second, these proponents claim that this practice simply serves to
get rid of ``unwanted'' horses. The truth is that horse rescue groups
often attend these slaughter auctions and bid on these so-called
``unwanted'' horses, only to be out-bid by the buyers for the foreign
slaughter houses. I'm told that these rescue groups would give these
horses good homes.
I'm also told that many people sell their horses at auctions
without knowing that they are sending their horse to its death. When
they find out the truth they are devastated. And, if there truly are
such ``unwanted'' horses, isn't there a better way to solve the problem
that the cruel system of horse slaughter?
Third, proponents of horse slaughter for human consumption is a
slippery slope. If they say that if we ban the slaughter of horses for
human consumption today, then slaughter of cattle for human consumption
will be banned tomorrow. I know John Boyd, with the National Black
Farmers Association, is supporting my bill. He also is a cattle farmer.
He is not buying into the ``slippery slope'' argument.
It seems to me that we have always treated horses differently from
cattle. We have never raised horses for the purpose of human
consumption. This is a big difference rooted in hundreds of years of
tradition and culture. It would seem to stop any ``slippery slope.''
I thank Mr. Scott for holding this important hearing and look
forward to hearing from our witnesses as they talk about ``America's
dirty secret.''
Mr. Conyers. And then--I only want to tell you that T.
Boone Pickens calls horse slaughter ``America's dirty secret.''
And I haven't talked with him about why he has used this
phrase, maybe we will find out here today.
I will yield back my time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us today to
discuss the legislation before us.
Our first witness is Ms. Liz Ross, Federal policy adviser,
Animal Welfare Institute.
Before her work with the Animal Welfare Institute, she
worked at the Doris Day Animal League for more than a decade.
She has over two decades of work in animal protection with a
specialty in equine protection. Since 2001, she has been deeply
involved in the campaign to end slaughter houses for human
consumption.
She earned her Bachelor of Science degree from Middlesex
University in London.
I think the Chairman of the Committee requested to
introduce the next witness, a former representative, Mr.
Stenholm.
Mr. Conyers. Well, I wanted to introduce Charlie Stenholm
because I am one of the few people still around that was here
when he was here, and I am delighted to see him again.
He is a senior policy adviser in the Olsson Law Firm. He
represented Texas for many years, was senior Member on the
Agriculture Committee.
He was in the Congress for 26 years, and he is the
immediate past president of the American Association of
Equine--wait a minute. No, he wasn't the past president.
[Laughter.]
He has received honorary law degrees from a number of
universities. And he was--I remember his bills on economic
policy very well across the years.
He enjoyed the great support of our leadership, and I am
happy to see him again.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And you are not the only one that served with Charlie
Stenholm. We all very much respected his work with fiscal
responsibility, helping to guide us through the years when we
actually balanced the budget and ran into surplus to a large
extent to the--through the work of Charlie Stenholm and others.
So thank you, Representative Stenholm, for being with us
today.
It would be great privilege and honor to introduce the next
witnesses from the Commonwealth of Virginia, however, the
gentleman from Michigan has asked to introduce him, too.
So I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan to introduce
my good friend from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. Conyers. I didn't know I was trespassing on your state
sovereignty prerogatives. [Laughter.]
But--nor did I know you had been around that long either. I
had forgotten that you, too, had served with Charlie Stenholm.
But John Boyd and I go back a long time. He is not from
Michigan, but I have known him longer than the Chairman is the
only thing I can claim.
He created--because of the disparity in the way farmers of
color have been treated in terms of being able to enjoy some of
the Federal legislation to support those in the agriculture
industry, he formed the National Black Farmers Association.
He himself is a fourth-generation farmer, still has a huge
farm in Mecklenburg County and has owned horses and has a
bachelor degree. But he is an activist. That is the thing I
like about him.
He is still on the battlefield fighting for minority
farmers all these years, and we are happy to have him here.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And he is a friend of many people and
very much honored in Virginia and throughout the Nation for his
work with the National Black Farmers Association. So welcome.
Our next witness is Douglas Corey of Adams, Oregon. He
practices equine medicine at Associated Veterinary Clinic, a
five-person mixed animal practice.
He is the immediate past president of the American
Association of Equine Practitioners and has held many
leadership positions within the organization including chair of
the Equine Welfare Committee.
He is a graduate of Whitman College in Walla Walla,
Washington and earned his veterinary degree from Colorado State
University.
Dr. Nicholas Dodman is the section head and program
director of the animal behavior department of clinical sciences
at Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine in
Massachusetts.
He specializes in animal behavior and has written for best-
selling books, two text books, and more than a hundred
articles.
He graduated from Glasgow University, a veterinary school
in Scotland. He is a member of the American Veterinary Medical
Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, American
College of Veterinary Behaviorists, and the American College of
Veterinary Anesthesiologists.
He is a founding member of the Vets for Equine Welfare and
a member of the leadership council of the Humane Society
Veterinary Medical Association.
Wayne Pacelle is president and CEO of the Humane Society of
the United States, the Nation's oldest--excuse me--the Nation's
largest animal protection organization.
He has worked extensively in Congress and state
legislatures to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human
consumption.
He has written countless articles on animal protection. He
has a bachelor's degree from Yale with a dual major in history
and studies in the environment.
Now, each of our witnesses' written statements will be made
part of the record, each statement in its entirety.
We would ask that each witness summarize his or her
testimony in 5 minutes or less and stay within that time. There
is a timing device at the table which will start off green, go
to yellow when 1 minute is left, and finally red when their 5
minutes are up.
We will begin with Ms. Ross.
TESTIMONY OF LIZ CLANCY ROSS, FEDERAL POLICY ADVISOR, ANIMAL
WELFARE INSTITUTE, ALEXANDRIA, VA
Ms. Ross. Good morning. I am Liz Ross. I am Federal policy
adviser for the Animal Welfare Institute here in Washington.
I just want to thank you Chairman Scott, Chairman Conyers,
and Judge Gohmert for holding this hearing today and the staff
who I know put so much work into bringing this together.
I truly appreciate the opportunity to testify in favor of
the Conyers-Burton Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act and,
Chairman Conyers, we can't thank you enough for sponsoring the
bill.
Before I start into my testimony, I would like to also just
go on record that I and my organization support, as well, H.R.
6597, the Animal Cruelty Statistics Act.
I would also like to correct part of my record. Congressman
Stenholm corrected me this morning that he is not working--the
slaughter houses are not a client of his, and that was in my
written testimony. So I wish to correct that for the record.
With more than two decades of experience in the animal
protection community, I have had the honor of working with
legislators here in Washington as well as in the British and
European parliaments. I have been integrally involved in the
effort to end horse slaughter via the legislative process.
I am a founding member of the Home 4 Horse Coalition. I and
my organization have partnered with the National Black Farmers
Association to place at-risk horses in good homes.
And I also serve on the board of directors for Global
Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.
I first became aware of horse slaughter back in 2000 when I
went to the New Holland Sales Stable in Pennsylvania. This is a
weekly sale where hundreds of horses are sold, many of them
going to slaughter.
And the animal cruelty and terror that I witnessed that day
and everything that I learned about the slaughter trade
thereafter was so disturbing to me that, upon returning to
Washington, I sat down with my colleagues, including Chris Hyde
of the Animal Welfare Institute, and started piecing together a
legislative fix to this problem.
Chris and I had the honor of working with then
Representative Connie Morella, who introduced the first
incarnation of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, the
predecessor to the bill before you today.
Her bill was introduced in the 107th Congress. It was
reintroduced in subsequent Congresses gaining great
congressional and public support. In fact, in the 109th, it
passed the House by a landslide vote of 263 to 146, but failed
to do so in the Senate.
Sponsors reintroduced this at the start of the 110th. It
currently has 206 co-sponsors in the House and 39 in the
Senate. But, again, it stalled in Committee.
Attempts to remedy the situation through the appropriations
process have also hit a brick wall.
As you noted before, horses are not currently being
slaughtered in the United States. Under state law, the plants
in Texas and Illinois were shut down.
But our horses are still being slaughtered and butchered
for human consumption overseas by high-end diners. They are
simply being transported further to Canada and Mexico where, if
you can imagine, the process is even more brutal than it is or
was here in the United States.
That, combined with the patchwork of state laws that
actually could have it so that plants could reopen in states
with lesser laws than those in California, Illinois, and Texas,
really cry out for a strong Federal statute to shut down this
trade.
You may hear that horse slaughter is a necessary evil
without which horses will suffer abuse and neglect. The horse
slaughter industry exists to turn a profit, and it exists
because of the money to be made. It actually engenders abuse
and neglect.
Regarding what to do with all of the unwanted horses should
we shut this trade down again, you noted at the start, Mr.
Chairman, that 350,000 horses were slaughtered in 1990 and that
dropped to just over 100,000 last year. There has been no flood
of unwanted horses running in our fields and streets because--
this is again, a market-driven industry.
If slaughter were no longer an option, old and sick horses
could be euthanized, humanely euthanized by a vet and their
bodies rendered or buried, which is what this country does with
hundreds of thousands of horses every year.
But most horses going to slaughter are good, healthy, sound
horses. In fact, the USDA cites that 92 percent of horses going
to slaughter are in good condition, so they don't need to be
lethally disposed of.
Some have tried to blur the line between slaughter and
humane euthanasia. There is nothing similar between the two.
Humane euthanasia is a peaceful process. Slaughter is a
brutal process. And if there is any doubt in your mind about
this, I have submitted pictures that are quite graphic along
with my testimony that shows just how brutal this trade is.
Mr. Chairman, the ultimate goal for genuine equine
advocates has always been the passage of a Federal bill, and
were it not for the people who are opposing this bill while, at
the same time decrying the export of horses to Mexico and
Canada, we wouldn't be before you today asking for your help.
Some have actually questioned whether it makes sense to
take the judiciary route and to criminalize horse slaughter via
Title 18.
Not only is there a legislative precedent for doing so, but
horse slaughter, in every respect, is a form of animal cruelty
and ought to be recognized and treated as such.
Every 5 minutes, an American horse is slaughtered. We don't
raise them for human consumption, we don't eat them, yet our
horses continue to be brutally slaughtered.
These are our pets, our work horses, our race horses, and
they are suffering an unimagined terror and pain so that
someone can make a buck.
There can be no doubt that this is cruelty, and it ought to
stop. We respectfully request that the Committee and the United
States Congress quickly pass the Conyers-Burton Prevention of
Equine Cruelty Act into law.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ross follows:]
Prepared Statement of Liz Clancy Ross
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Representative Stenholm?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES W. STENHOLM, FORMER MEMBER
OF CONGRESS, TEXAS
Mr. Stenholm. Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert,
Chairman Conyers, it is indeed a pleasure for me to be here
today. I thank you for your kind remarks of my previous
service.
Now, I want to correct one thing in my record, also, where
I say that I speak for all animal agriculture. That is a
misstatement.
There is a minority voice in animal agriculture that
disagrees with my opinion, and I respect that.
We are a Nation that believes in majority rule. We are all
entitled to our opinions, but we are not all entitled to our
facts. And I respectfully differ with the opinions of those
here at this table.
We can all agree, though, on one thing--99.9 percent of us
acknowledge that all animals should be treated humanely from
birth until death. There is no argument on that one from me or
anyone else that I purport to represent.
But the definition of humane treatment is debatable. I have
been to a horse processing plant. I have witnessed it. I have
been to beef, pork, poultry, and fish plants. I would not
describe it as pleasant, but it is humane and what happens in
our society and the animal industry.
Now, we warned Congress, those of us who have a different
opinion, last year, if you pass this legislation and you
prohibit the processing of horses, there will be unintended
consequences, and there are unintended consequences all over
the country today.
As ascertained by our National Association of Counties,
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and
Sheriff's Departments, there is no question that there are
unintended consequences. Horse owners are having a difficult
time finding a place for their unwanted horses.
It is true that exports of live horses to Mexico have
increased dramatically. It is true that exports of live horses
to Canada have increased dramatically. If you pass this
legislation, theoretically, that will stop--theoretically.
I do represent the livestock markets of America, some 800
individual small businesses, basically, that have in the past
sold horses. If this legislation passes, they will no longer be
able to sell horses because they can not assume the
responsibility for a horse that comes to their sale for which
there is no buyer.
That is another problem with this legislation. The problem
with banning the processing of horses is the price floor for
unwanted horses that the processing industry has provided will
be gone. And this is what the majority at this table would like
to see, but Dr. Corey and I have a different opinion.
Now, you hear a lot about unfunded mandates. Mr. Chairman,
Members of this Committee, if this legislation were to pass and
if horse processing for human consumption is absolutely totally
banned the state, county, and local governments are going to
have to assume a tremendous amount of additional responsibility
because there are no funds being provided.
There are some excellent horse sanctuary organizations. We
have one in Texas. Judge Gohmert, you are aware of Black
Beauty. They do a great job, but they are extremely full. And
there are others that do a great job.
But there is not enough money and there is not enough
effort to take care of all of the unwanted horses. And I can
understand, personally, if an individual horse owner does not
wish their horse to be processed for human consumption. I am
for you; don't sell your horse. Do with it as has been
suggested that you should all do.
But why would this Committee superimpose your will on a
horse owner that does not object to their horse being processed
for human consumption?
Why would you want to superimpose your will on an
individual horse owner that does not object? That would rather
have their horse consumed in countries that do eat horse meat
as long as it is done humanely? We don't.
Why would you want to superimpose your views on them, of
saying what they can and can't do with their horse? Except, of
course, to treat your horses humanely
That is the problem that has always been a concern to me.
We are a Nation of laws. We are a Nation of private property
rights, and why would we superimpose our views on a minority or
a majority of those who do not object?
If you would prefer to have your horse euthanized and sent
to a garbage dump, I am for you. But why would you oppose a
horse owner that does not object to their horse being consumed
by someone that does believe it is okay according to their
customs?
Mr. Chairman, again be careful on unfunded mandates. There
is an excellent op-ed in the Washington Post this morning from
the governor of New York about unfunded mandates and the costs
that are occurring.
This will be one of the biggest unfunded mandates on many
small towns and communities that could possibly be passed.
A final interesting point, we are importing our horse meat
back in the United States to feed our zoo animals because, as
you all know, zoo animals prefer horse meat.
When this meat comes into the United States, it is fit for
human consumption because, contrary to popular opinion, any
horses that are processed in Canada or Mexico that go into
international trade must meet U.S. food safety requirements, of
which all of us agree, must be met.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stenholm follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Charles W. Stenholm
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Boyd?
TESTIMONY OF JOHN BOYD, JR., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BLACK FARMERS
ASSOCIATION, BASKERVILLE, VA
Mr. Boyd. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman
Scott, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Gohmert.
It is a pleasure to be here this morning, and I appreciate
the kind words during the introduction.
I first learned about this issue through an HBO special
that I saw with Bryant Gumbel that talked about horse
slaughter.
I am a fourth-generation farmer. My father was a farmer. My
grandfather was a farmer. And where I come from, we don't eat
horses. Where I come from, we use horses as a way of living,
for work.
When I was a little kid, my first job in the morning was to
get up and brush my grandfather's mules and feed them. And I
used to--I asked him one time, I said, Well, granddaddy, why do
I have to brush them? And I got a whooping for about an hour
because that was the way that he made a living for his 15
children, and that was the way that he made a living to raise
his grandchildren and so on and so forth.
So I beg to differ with Mr. Stenholm, who I have a lot of
respect for. I have known him a long time, as you have, too,
for his work on the Agriculture Committee.
But I agree with T. Boone Pickens. This is America's
``dirty little secret.'' How can I not know that people were
slaughtering horses for food consumption? Nobody on my board of
directors knew that we were slaughtering horses for food
consumption. And I think it comes to a point where you have to
draw a line in the sand.
I am a farmer. Nobody is trying to take away the rights to
raise cattle or to raise hogs or to raise chickens. That is not
what this hearing is about, and our opponents may allude to
that.
This is about a mere right-and-wrong issue, Mr. Chairman;
about killing horses for consumption. And this is a right-and-
wrong issue about greed from the people, the middle men, who
want to make money.
I don't know of one farmer in America--Mr. Stenholm may
disagree here--that raises horses for slaughter.
I don't know any members in my organization that raise
horses for slaughter. So I agree with that assumption that some
farmers may allude to that.
When we sell horses, it is not our objective to have a
horse slaughtered. We are thinking that this horse is going to
go on to another farm.
I would like to address one other point: the unwanted
theory. There is not all these horses running around and--in
the south--and people don't want these horses or anything like
that. That is not the issue. This is about people who want to
make money off of horse slaughter.
So I heard about the issue with HBO and I reached out to
the Animal Welfare Institute, and we wanted to tie our
membership and to place some of these horses in our membership
around the country.
And we think that is a perfect fit. Most farmers want
horses. Most farmers have horses on their farms. And we think
it is a perfect fit to help place some of these horses on the
farms around the country.
So with that said, all the issues about all of these
unwanted horses, yes, we have times of economic hard times and
farmers are having difficulties, things of that nature. Feed
and hay and all of these things play a factor.
But most of us hold on to our livestock and we treat our
livestock very well. As you heard to my upbringing, that was
one of the things that we had to do was make sure that we kept
up our livestock and take care of it.
So a lot of the things that I have heard today, I kind of
disagree with. We want to end horse slaughter in America, and
here again, where I come from, I don't know about you, but we
don't eat horses.
We may eat some beef and some other things, but we don't
eat horses.
So we are here in support of the bill and, Chairman
Conyers, we appreciate you introducing this legislation, and we
are looking forward to working with other Members to get the
bill passed.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Boyd, Jr.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Dr. Boyd.
I want to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Delahunt, who has joined us today.
Dr. Corey?
TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS G. COREY, DVM, ADAMS, OR
Mr. Corey. Thank you. Chairman Scott and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
I am Dr. Douglas Corey. I have practiced equine medicine
for over 30 years. And I am here today as the immediate past
president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners
and as past chairman of the AAEP's Equine Welfare Committee.
The AAEP is a professional association representing nearly
10,000 equine veterinarians and veterinary students worldwide.
Our mission is to protect the health and welfare of the horse.
Unwanted horses in the United States are facing a crisis.
From New York to California, horses that are considered at risk
in the equine population are being severely impacted by a
struggling economy, high grain, high hay prices, high fuel
prices, and the closure last year of the three U.S. slaughter
plants.
The result, increased equine cruelty in the form of abuse,
neglect, and abandonment.
You have to look no further than the national magazines,
your own local newspapers, to see evidence of the negative
impact on the unwanted horse population.
From Time Magazine, May 2008, an epidemic of abandoned
horses. From USA Today, March 2008, U.S. shelters saddled with
unwanted horses. In The Washington Post, January 2008, Loudoun
County, VA, gets 47 cruelly-treated horses. And from my home
state of Oregon, the Bend Bulletin headline just last week
read: Oregon horse owners face tough decisions.
Headlines aside, those of us who are in the field every day
practicing equine veterinary medicine know the harsh realities
confronting horses that are unwanted.
My colleagues are increasingly alarmed by the growing
number of clients who can no longer afford care for their
animals. Fortunately, some of these horses are sold to new
owners or are able to be placed in a rescue or retirement
facility.
However, more of these horses are left unsold at auctions
even with rock-bottom prices. Others endure a worse fate of
being neglected by their owners or abandoned.
In the state of Colorado alone, equine cruelty
investigations have been up 40 percent in 2007.
While it is difficult to get an accurate count of the total
number of unwanted horses in the United States, we know from
the number of horses that are currently being sent to
processing plants in North America that that number is in the
tens of thousands.
In 2006, the last year that the U.S. processing plants were
open for the entire fiscal year, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture reported that over 102,000 horses were processed in
this country alone. The vast majority of those horses were
unwanted.
And while processing plants alone are currently closed in
the U.S., the only option for many of today's horses remains
processing at a facility outside of this country.
The AAEP advocates the humane care of all horses and
believes the equine industry and horse owners have a
responsibility to provide them humane care throughout the life
of a horse.
Because of a large population of the unwanted horses in the
U.S., the AAEP believes that processing of unwanted horses is
currently a necessary end-of-life option and provides a humane
alternative to allowing the horse to continue a life of
discomfort and pain or endure inadequate care or abandonment.
Our chief reason for opposing this legislation is not
because our association believes that sending a horse to a
processing plant is the best option for reducing the unwanted
horse population. Our opposition exists because this
legislation does not address the long-term care and funding
that will be necessary to help the tens of thousands of horses
that would be affected by abandonment.
Assuming a bare minimum cost of $5 per day for a horse's
basic needs, which does not include veterinary or ferrier
expenses, the funding needed per horse per year is
approximately $1,800.
Multiply this, for example, by the number of horses that
have been sent to the Mexican processing facilities thus far in
2008; you have 30,000 horses with a cost care per year of $55
million. This does not include the large number of horses going
to Canada.
I ask: Can the Federal Government help fund the care of
these horses?
Those who support a ban on horse processing often state
that there are currently a number of equine rescue and
retirement facilities to care for all horses that need homes. I
strongly dispute this claim.
While there are a number of facilities in the United States
providing homes for old and unwanted horses, the capacity of
these individual facilities is usually limited to 30 horses or
less.
In closing, this legislation is premature. Horse processing
is symptomatic of a much larger issue, and that is how to
provide the humane care for tens of thousands of unwanted
horses in the United States.
We believe the equine industry must work together to find a
solution to this complex issue. We recognize that there truly
is a perfect storm of factors impacting this issue right now.
One of the AAEP's priorities is to help these horses by
educating owners and encouraging responsible horse ownership.
That is why the Unwanted Horse Coalition was formed in 2005 by
the AAEP and is currently under the American Horse Council.
Last month, the AAEP polled the membership on this issue.
Seventy-five percent of our members believe that horse
processing should remain, at this time, an end-of-life
decision.
We, the horse veterinarians of this country, know that
passage of this bill will put the unwanted horse population at
an even greater risk.
I urge you to carefully consider the unintended
consequences of this legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas G. Corey
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Dodman?
TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS H. DODMAN, DVM, CO-FOUNDER, VETERINARIANS
FOR EQUINE WELFARE AND HUMANE SOCIETY VETERINARY MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION, WESTBOROUGH, MA
Mr. Dodman. Is this on? Yeah.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify on
H.R. 6598, the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act.
I have been introduced, but I would just say about my
credentials that as a vet who was trained in Scotland. I am a
meat inspector, and did my time in the slaughter plants, and I
know something about that.
I am also an anesthesiologist who has anesthetized
thousands of horses, and I think I am--as a board-certified
specialist, I am in a position to judge consciousness and
unconsciousness.
I am also currently an animal behaviorist, which I got into
through studies on equine research.
I want to thank the sponsors of this legislative effort,
Chairman Conyers, Representative Burton, Subcommittee Chairman
Scott, Representatives Nadler, Sutton, and Chabot on this
Committee, the original co-sponsors of this legislation.
I would say--I want to testify, really, in my main area of
expertise, but just addressing Dr. Corey's comments just there
that I am aware of numbers that horses have been killed at one
time, you know, 15, 20 years ago at 350,000 horses a year were
being slaughtered.
That number at the low, dropped to 42,000 horses a year or
something in that order, you know, almost a 90 percent drop.
There was no increase in neglect. There was no increase in
abandonment. There were no horses running up and down the
freeways.
The people who would support the continuing of slaughter
would have you believe that there are unwanted horses to the
tune of a hundred thousand per year. Nobody knows the exact
number. They probably are a small number.
If you take that number that we know we can get down to
because it is factually true, that is 42,000, and you take off
both horses that are stolen--and we know that happens because
of the horse theft figures in California--you take off the
number of horses that are conned from people from tax shops and
advertisements, the ones that arrive in slaughter houses with
little pink bridles on because they belonged to a little girl a
few days before who never would have agreed to this; the ones
that are bought out from under riding school people by being
overbid by a killer buyer; the horses that have been taken from
the wild.
If you pare that 42,000 number down, you come up with a
much smaller number than the one that all these antagonists put
all their plans by and frighten people, frighten their
memberships into talking about increased neglect and welfare.
What I can tell you is that the AVMA is saying, you know,
we have got these two terrible situations, and Dr. Corey kind
of alluded to it, you know, on the one hand, there might be,
but it has never been proven to be, and all the sources Dr.
Corey quotes are just newspaper reports.
There is no hard evidence that anything bad will happen if
you ban slaughter. I personally believe it is a predatory and
brutal industry that exists solely to generate what I calculate
to be about a billion dollars between all the hands, and they
are fighting like crazy to keep it alive, and they are sucking
healthy horses out of the population just to supply the demand
for meat to foreign countries.
Most of the money from this does not go to the United
States, it goes abroad.
The whole process, you know, the alternative--people say,
well, let us not let them starve in a field; let us kill them
humanely by slaughter.
It is not humane. It is not euthanasia. Euthanasia means
good death. This is not a good death. This is the worst death
you could possibly imagine.
These plants are like Auschwitz for horses. From the time
they are conned off their people, from the time they got onto
that trailer and they ride a thousand miles in extremes of
weather--with people who say, why bother watering them? They
are going to die anyway. That is the kind of typical attitude
of a driver. They break rules.
I have been involved in the Canadian situation. They take
double-decker trailers, which we are not allowed to use in
slaughter plants. They take them to feed lots and dump them
there for a while, or they drive them straight.
I have seen film of trailers, double-deckers arriving that
have driven from, you know, Colorado to Saskatchewan with these
horses on board. They are terrified. They are milling around.
They are brought into facilities that are designed for cattle.
The facilities are atrocious. The floor is slippery with blood
and urine. The horses--many of the horses are so panicked; they
are terrified. Their eyes are rolling in their head. Their feet
are spinning around in circles.
They are trying to jump out. The smaller ones can turn
around because the wrong-sized container. The larger ones get
their heads stuck through the cattle restraint. The shooter
can't reach around to kill them.
I mean, the noise is awful. I mean, it is supposed to be
quiet. You are supposed to have high-sides. You are supposed to
have non-slip floors. You are supposed to have proper
arrangements.
Even the AVMA says that the animal's head should be
properly secured. These animals are going back and forth like a
shuttle car, and the man's trying to reach with a gun and a
stick, and you are trying to shoot something like a fish in a
barrel that is the size of a grapefruit in a horse's head which
is this size. And you have got to hit that when it is a moving
target.
According to one sticker in the plant in Canada, 50 percent
of the horses that are subsequently shackled are actually
conscious.
I have seen horses with their mouths going and their feet
running. I estimated 30 percent. He said more like 50 percent.
They then have their throat cut which takes a while for
them to bleed out. This is like the old English equivalent of
hung, drawn, and quartered. And then the next machine cuts
their legs off above their wrists.
I wouldn't be surprised--I don't have direct evidence, but
if some of these horses that have their legs cut off aren't
still alive. I mean, they are wriggling on the hook like
salmon.
If you look at this, you don't need to be a rocket
scientist, you don't need to be a veterinary behaviorist, you
don't need to be an anesthesiologist. This is not humane.
And any group or organization that supports it really has
to reexamine what they are all about.
And these polls you hear about, the people listening to
these, the veterinarians, the AVMA, are being fed wrong
information and they come to the wrong conclusion.
Neither extreme is right. There are two evils. And the
second evil, which is slaughter, there has been no negative
consequences of banning slaughter that have ever been proven.
All the people can do is refer to newspaper articles and stuff
like this.
There is no hard evidence--350,000 to 42,000--no change in
the criminal acts of abuse which go on anyway in the background
at a same consistent rate.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nicholas N. Dodman
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Pacelle?
TESTIMONY OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HUMANE SOCIETY
OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for holding this
hearing and for all of your work on animal welfare issues and
also to you, Chairman Conyers, for your leadership throughout
your career on animal welfare.
You know, it was just a short number of years ago when
animal cruelty issues were not taken seriously. And this
Congress has already enacted animal fighting legislation that
several of you on this Committee have led because you believe
that it is wrong and inhumane to stage fights for animals just
for simple amusement.
And both bills here today address fundamental issues of
animal cruelty. And the Humane Society of the United States
wholeheartedly supports both because we don't believe that
animals are just things or commodities.
These animals have the same spark of life that we have.
They want to live just as much as we want to live.
And it is precisely because we are smart and intelligent as
a species that we should be decent and responsible in our
dealings with other creatures.
And this is not decency. This is rationalizations that we
are hearing from folks who are profiting from the exploitation
of these horses.
I will say just a few more words about horses later, but I
do want to say a quick word about the Animal Cruelty Statistics
Act, H.R. 6597.
You know, we now treat, as a society, animal cruelty
seriously because we know it is a vice. It is a moral wrong in
and of itself.
But we also know that animal cruelty and the violence
associated with it cannot be compartmentalized; that people who
are brutal and harmful and abusive to animals often have those
same ill sentiments directed toward people.
We see that in 75 percent of cases where there is domestic
violence, there is also animal cruelty and vice versa. One day
it is the animal, another day it is a child, another day it is
a spouse.
We need proper reporting of animal cruelty cases because we
see that serial killers start with animals and they move on to
people. And we see all sorts of other violence associated with
animals that then moves on to people.
So we commend you for introducing, Chairman Conyers, the
Animal Cruelty Statistics Act. And we don't want this data out
of curiosity; we want it because it will help prevent crime and
because it will stop violence in our communities and in our
Nation.
Regarding the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act, you know,
the other proponents of this legislation have it exactly right.
Horses are not raised for food. These animals are
opportunistically collected up by individuals who want to make
a profit.
And any industry that is involved in exploiting animals
is--I have seen it through the years. They have these elaborate
rationalizations to justify their conduct.
They don't want to say they are cruel. Of course, you can't
say that. So you have to concoct some defense that somehow by
slaughtering these animals, we are doing them a favor; that we
are preventing terrible cruelty because people will neglect
them and harm them.
Well, should policy in this Nation be driven by people who
starve animals or exhibit cruelty to them?
Why are we propping up, as the primary argument of the
opponents of this legislation, the fact that some people will
starve animals and, therefore, we shouldn't stop cruelty?
Those people should be prosecuted under state anti-cruelty
statutes. That is what those statutes allow for, and if Mr.
Stenholm or the other opponents of this legislation have
evidence of people within their community starving or
neglecting or abandoning horses, please give it to us because
we will work with law enforcement authorities to stop this
cruelty.
You know, I really think that horses in our society have
moved more in the category of dogs and cats. You know, we don't
take unwanted dogs and cats and ship them to slaughter houses
so they can be exported for human consumption.
And, you know, now that the U.S.-based slaughter houses
have closed, we are talking about a type of cruelty that is
more extreme than ever.
We are talking about transport distances into central
Mexico that may be 1500 miles, horses crammed onto cattle
trucks where they cannot even stand; underfed, underwatered
animals on long-distance transport.
And then when they get to Mexico, no standards for humanely
killing the animals.
We documented. Our humane society investigators have been
at the plant in Mexico, and we have it on tape, and we have
submitted it to the Committee the horses going into the kill
box and being stabbed with a short knife or a boning knife.
You know, the San Antonio News went to a slaughter plant
that we investigated and showed footage of. This was after our
investigation exposed the cruelty. And the reporter described a
scene. She said the American mare swung her head franticly when
the door shuts to the kill box trapping her inside.
A worker jabbed her in the back with a small knife seven,
eight, nine times. Eyes wild, she lowered her head and raised
it as the blade punctured her body around the withers again and
again.
At the tenth jab, she fell to the floor of this Mexican
slaughter house, bloodied and paralyzed but not yet dead. She
would lay there for a good 2 minutes before being hoisted from
a chained rear leg so her throat could be slit and she could be
bled to death.
You know, we could do better than this as a society. If we
are a humane species, we must be humane to the less powerful
among us.
These creatures cannot speak for themselves. We have laws
in this society that say that cruelty to animals is wrong. If
those laws mean anything, they should be applied to these
circumstances where we are being barbaric to these creatures.
Thank you very much, and I would like to ask that a
tabulation of reports from horse rescuers where they have been
competing against killer buyers to save these horses be entered
into the record as well as the letter from the ASPCA.
[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.]
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wayne Pacelle
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And I thank all of our witnesses for
their testimony. They will be called on in due course.
I would like to recognize, at this time, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Coble, who are with us today.
We will now have questions, and I will recognize myself for
5 minutes to begin with Dr. Boyd.
Dr. Boyd, you have a Ph.D. in economics?
Mr. Boyd. Yes.
Mr. Scott. Can you talk very briefly about the impact of a
prohibition on the farming business--on our farming business?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, I can.
I think one of the things that I was listening to, Mr.
Stenholm, when he spoke about property rights. I bought these
horses and they belong to me. I can kill them or slaughter them
or whatever it is that I may want to do with the horses.
And it wasn't that long ago that they viewed African-
Americans in the same way in slavery, as property, and I can do
what I want to do when I want to do it.
And I think it goes back to the line in the sand that I
spoke about there, Mr. Chairman, about a mere right and wrong
with this issue as far as it equates to horse slaughter.
There is no horses running down the street that people
don't want, that you heard some of the panelists talk about.
We think that we can provide good homes within our
organization for horses, and we plan to work with the rescues
to place these horses around the country.
So I don't--and nobody really knows--I have done my own
research before I got involved in this issue, Mr. Chairman,
nobody knows the real numbers.
I checked with USDA; they really didn't know the real
numbers of what they say may be ``unwanted horses.''
So to answer your question, they don't know what the
numbers are. But I can tell you that horse slaughter--horse
slaughter is wrong.
Mr. Scott. Ms. Ross, Mr. Stenholm mentioned costs to
localities, did you have a response to that?
Ms. Ross. Well, thank you for the question.
What we have seen traditionally is that while localities
may certainly be involved in animal cruelty cases or the
seizure of horses, we have a network of rescues across the
country that work in partnership with the authorities. And most
usually, they are actually taking those horses in and providing
for them from their own private funds and from the money of
individual donors.
So, again, I do not believe that there will be a
significant economic impact or any economic impact on local
municipalities.
What I would like to say is that with slaughter, there has
been a very negative economic impact on jurisdictions that were
unwilling hosts to the slaughter plants.
Paula Bacon, the former mayor of Kaufman, Texas, which was
home to Dallas Crown, fought for years with her city council
trying to get the slaughter house out of there because it was
such a negative economic drain and environmental hazard for
that community in terms of the money that they had to put into
revamping their sewer system to deal with the blood and other
bi-products of the slaughter industry.
There were people in that town who couldn't open up their
windows or run their air conditioners because the stench was so
horrific. There was blood in the streets. The emergency workers
and the fire workers had to work repeatedly with blood that was
left in the road.
And this was a huge economic impact on the community and on
the city.
And so, if anything, there is a very negative environmental
impact to this trade.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Stenholm, if you have horses slaughtered for human
consumption, how do we know that no inappropriate drugs like
steroids has whatnot were--that the horses were carrying drugs,
steroids, or whatever?
Mr. Stenholm. When we had the three processing plants in
the United States operating, all of the meat, other than that
which went to zoo animals, went to Europe for human
consumption.
All of the health restrictions that applied to the
Europeans on what is in or out of the meat applied to the
inspection of those carcasses.
I have to assume that the food safety veterinarians, the
food and drug experts and all of the people that were concerned
about that very question were doing their job.
Mr. Scott. Are there any plants still in operation in the
United States?
Mr. Stenholm. No.
Mr. Scott. Then if they are being used for human
consumption, they would not be slaughtered in the United
States? They would be slaughtered somewhere else?
Mr. Stenholm. Yes.
Mr. Scott. How do we know that the horses are, from a
health perspective, appropriate for slaughter for human
consumption?
Mr. Stenholm. Those plants that are operating in Canada and
in Mexico are abiding by the same rules for human consumption
that Europe imposed upon us and Japan imposed upon us when we
were processing horses and shipping the meat to them.
We cannot guarantee 100 percent compliance, no matter how
many laws we pass. I would guess that there is probably a
quarter of a million stop signs in Washington, DC. A few of
them are being run as we speak.
Laws are going to be broken. And I would say here--this
emotion--Mr. Pacelle is excellent at emotion.
But when you begin to associate me with child killers
because of the opinion that I have on horse processing, that
goes over the top as far as I am concerned. And I know you will
say you didn't mean it that way, but when you get into making
those innuendos, that is what makes this such an emotional
issue.
And I want to repeat: No horse owner that does not wish
their horse to be processed for human consumption should ever
have their horse processed for human consumption.
But there are unintended effects now by having no
processing plants available in the United States. We have cost
to the horse industry in excess of $1 billion in economic
activity.
Now, Dr. Boyd, I appreciate what you are saying, but I
don't believe all of your members who own horses would prefer
to have their horse euthanized at a cost of $200 to $2,000,
depending on where you are, versus receiving a value for that
horse.
Now, if we absolutely eliminate this, livestock markets
will no longer be able to sell horses.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Pacelle. May I respond to that, Chairman Scott?
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Scott. Very briefly, Mr. Pacelle.
Mr. Pacelle. You know, there are two bills at issue here,
and the Cruelty Statistics Bill--I made the link between animal
cruelty and human violence. It is well documented in the
sociological literature, and I was really confining my comments
there.
The sort of cruelty that we see in the horse slaughter
industry is institutionalized cruelty. It is done by the
slaughter plants.
And I think that there is a distinction there, but I do
want to just say very, very briefly that this issue that
Congressman Stenholm mentioned about imposing views--there is a
very fundamental question as we deliberate our responsibilities
to animals.
He says, well, if you don't want to slaughter your horse,
then you don't have to, but let us do it.
Well, to me, that is the same as saying, well, if you don't
want to put your dog in a dog fight, don't do it. But if I want
to put my dog in a dog fight, then that is acceptable.
The reason that we have laws is we have standards that are
based on social norms. And the norm here is that we don't think
cruelty is acceptable.
And just because you have the power to do it, doesn't mean
you should do it.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Boyd?
Mr. Boyd. I just wanted to respond to Mr. Stenholm. I
disagree that they won't be able to sell these horses at some
of the buying stations around the country. That is not
accurate.
We have had horses in this country since probably before we
were here. And horses were here and nobody was eating horses
that I am aware of.
And to the point of Mr. Stenholm, I don't know of a Black
farmer that raises horses for food consumption. We just don't
do that, Mr. Chairman.
So that is--the Senator isn't quite accurate here.
Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Chairman, briefly for the record, up
until 1944, we consumed horse meat in the United States.
In fact, during World War II, it was recommended that we
eat horse meat so that the beef could go to our troops who were
winning World War II. That needs to be in the record.
We did. We no longer do.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Texas has asked me to defer first to the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. I thank both of you. I have a transportation
hearing going on now.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
Good to have you all with us, especially our old buddy from
Texas who is back on the Hill. Good to see you again, Charlie.
Mr. Stenholm, I am told that more than 29,000 horses have
been exported to Mexico this year. And that is, obviously, a
large number of horses to place in rescue facilities that are
already at capacity.
Where will these horses go?
Mr. Stenholm. Well, with all due respect to Ms. Ross and
her testimony, there are those that believe that there will be
an immediate home for them. And I hope they are right.
You know, if this legislation is passed, I hope they are
right.
But you only have to look at the plight of the Wild Horse
and Burro Program right now. We have 40,000 horses that are in
pens and in various sanctuaries around the country.
It is becoming a budget problem for the Congress that you
are going to have to deal with. And that 40,000 is only what we
know about.
I agree with the others who have said we don't know the
numbers on this exactly, but we do know what is happening in
Illinois.
I refer to my testimony which, Mr. Chairman, I failed to
ask to be part of the record.
Mr. Scott. The testimony--the written statements, in their
entirety, will be made part of the record.
Mr. Stenholm. We do know what is happening in Illinois. We
do know what is happening in Colorado. And we do know that
there are unwanted horse problems all over the United States.
But those 29,000 horses that are going to Mexico is what
will effectively stop if this legislation should pass, which is
the intent of it.
But I don't see how you will enforce it because how do you
determine the use of your horse once you sell your horse? It
then belongs to the next owner.
And trying to superimpose your will on an owner of a
property is going to be difficult.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm.
Ms. Ross, if you will, let me visit with you a minute.
Are existing sanctuaries sufficient to handle the enormous
number of abandoned horses, A? And how much range do they need
to be humanely treated?
Ms. Ross. I would like to start by responding to that
question by saying that the number of horses going to slaughter
is reflective of market demand and the capacity of the
slaughter houses to process those animals. It is not reflective
of the number of unwanted horses.
I actually have reports here that we were able to research
these instances of so-called unwanted horses running at large.
And instance after instance, we have got authorities refuting
these claims.
If I can just read a few----
The Ohio Division of Forestry said there was no knowledge
of any horses being turned loose in the state's forests.
In Kentucky, we have got the governor saying that these
statements about horses running at large were filled with
inaccuracies.
In Utah, we have got the Department of Natural Resources
saying we do not have any reports of horses being abandoned on
our wildlife management areas.
So again and again and again, every time we check these
facts about these stories, we are finding that this simply is
not true.
With regard to the infrastructure of sanctuaries, the
number of sanctuaries has actually risen in this country. We
have got approximately 415 now. There is a growing effort to
professionalize that community.
Again, I sit on the board of directors of the Global
Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. We are providing oversight
and professional assistance to these rescues. Rescues ought to
be operating at capacity by their very definition. And that is
what they do.
They are bringing horses in. They are rehabbing them. They
are re-homing them and bringing more horses in.
Mr. Coble. Well, how much range would be needed for you----
Ms. Ross. Well, again, it depends what the management style
is. But, again, you want to have the ability to turn out a
horse in pasture to have exercise and interaction with the
other herd members.
But there is no shortage of ranch and range space in this
country to put those horses on and to operate several
sanctuaries.
Mr. Coble. Thank you.
Dr. Boyd, how will H.R. 6598 prevent Mexican or Canadian
horse processing facility buyers from simply circumventing the
law by labeling horses as breeding stock or for other non-
slaughter purposes?
Mr. Boyd. Right. That is a good question.
Well, I think you get into tricky water when we try to
regulate what happens in Mexico and some of these other
countries. We really don't have jurisdiction to address that.
What we should be looking at, Congressman, is actually with the
bill.
How can we allow horse slaughter here in the United States
when there is really not any need for it?
Liz addressed the issues with the horse sanctuary. We don't
have all of the answers. That is number one.
But number two, we should be looking at other organizations
and reaching out to other constituencies right here in the
United States. For instance, the Farm Bureau.
The Farm Bureau has a far greater constituency than the
National Black Farmers Association. Has anybody reached out to
them to see what they can do to partner and take some of these
horses, you know, in the future as things arise?
So I think there is things that we can do right here in the
United States to deal with the issue.
And, you know, here again, we just don't have, you know,
jurisdiction over Mexico and what other people are going to be
doing to break the law.
Mr. Coble. I thank you. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Scott.
You know, John Boyd, if your dad had been as violent with
you now as he was then, we would have him up for charges on
some kind of abuse, if so.
That day has come and almost gone. There is still parents
that believe that children are spoiled if the rod is not used,
and we are still working that out as well.
Charles Stenholm, if we weren't in a $1.3 trillion
misbegotten war, there wouldn't be any problem.
I need to continue our discussion about that because I know
your fiscal approach during your decades here made that a very
important matter for you.
Now, what is really tough for me is I have got to persuade
my distinguished judicial friend from Texas about the merits of
my legislation. He scrutinizes this with great care.
And we have worked together on several pieces of
legislation, court security and some other matters that brought
us together.
So what I wonder, with my time, is just ask a few of you
how I might be able to raise the kinds of considerations that
would tend to bring Judge Gohmert and I closer together as we
explore this subject.
What would you say about that, Mr. Pacelle?
Mr. Pacelle. You know, I really do think, Chairman Conyers,
that this is a matter of personal responsibility; that, you
know, a lot of the Members of this Congress on both sides of
the aisle say that legislation is no substitute for
responsibility.
And in the care of animals, I think that is especially the
case.
Really, what we are talking about here is there was no
defense of the commerce of horse slaughter.
People say it is not vital to the economy. It is not vital
to the livelihood of the individual. They have basically said
if you don't have slaughter, you are going to have neglect or
abandonment.
And I think, really, the answer is for all of us to impress
upon people is that we are asking decent people to be
responsible in the care of horses. And if they cannot care for
the animal because they don't have enough money because of high
hay prices, they have a duty, a solemn duty to euthanize the
animal or to place the animal in a sanctuary; to sell the
animal for $200 or $300 or $400 to slaughter absolves some of
the responsibility in a legal sense but not in a moral sense.
Mr. Conyers. Uh-huh.
What do you have to add, Dr. Dodman?
Mr. Dodman. Well, it seems to me that there are some people
on the side of slaughter who adjust--they adjust all the facts
to support their case, and it doesn't matter whether it is what
are you going to do with the dead bodies or, you know, $2,000
to euthanize a horse or the cost of hay or gasoline or any----
Every single argument, every single ringer argument that
possibly could be used to defeat this motion is being conjured
up. And most of it, there is little support for.
You know, I--my--for example, on the matter of disposal of
the remains, I wrote a letter to the AVMA Journal which they
initially rejected because they said I hadn't referenced it.
So I referenced it and I sent it back in to the Journal
with the references. And then they said, actually, they would
prefer not to publish it because they weren't so sure about my
references which were about, you know, from agriculture
bureaus.
And then they put their own thing up on their Web site, and
it is a Q and A which is full of unsubstantiated, undocumented
mistruths.
So there are people who would have you believe things, and
they are twisting the facts. They are not--I would think
everything should be proven.
If they say there is an increase in abuse and neglect, they
should prove it because right now what is going on is abuse and
neglect. So that is guaranteed.
The other side of the equation, we don't even know what it
is, but we suspect it is much better than they think.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Corey. Can I make a comment?
Mr. Scott. Very briefly.
Mr. Corey. I mean, we have got a--the only two studies that
I am aware of, one in Colorado just recently, has indicated and
documented a 40 percent increase in abuse and neglect and
abandonment.
We also have an Illinois study, I don't have that exact
percentage, maybe Congressman Stenholm does. But those are
documented.
And we are working to educate equine owners to own
responsibly. And that is part of the Unwanted Horse Coalition's
goal; to own responsibly. So that is happening.
And also, as far as the--Ms. Ross' comments about rescues
and sanctuaries, there is no data on the exact number of those.
However, AAEP, the members, are out there in the field every
day working, and we see this.
We get reports from our members that we do see an increased
number of horses that are abandoned and neglected and abused.
Just the funds, the economy, and everything, hay prices at
$300 a ton, it is very expensive. So those statistics are real.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Texas, the Ranking Member?
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Chairman Scott.
There are a number of difficult issues, and I agree with
the witnesses who said they don't know anybody that has ever
raised horses for consumption. I mean, I have grown up around
horses my whole life, and I don't know of anybody that has ever
raised them for consumption, either.
But on the issue of horses being euthanized, you know, I
have tried to get to the bottom of what exactly is involved,
what would be the best way to euthanize a horse; what would be
acceptable in the eyes of most people with caring hearts and
common sense?
I have had people who said, you know, we certainly don't
need the horse slaughter plants because, you know, you can do
like my daddy always did, if you just let them die of natural
causes, and if something happens, you shoot them and then you
take your backhoe and you dig a hole and you bury him.
Then I have had it reported that actually between local,
state, and Federal environmental requirements, you really
should be getting the hole supervised, make sure you get the
right amount of lime, see if there is going to be contamination
of the ground water, and you are subject to heavy fines if you
don't do it right.
So, you know, when the Federal Government gets involved, we
have got so many different aspects to be considered.
But it would be nice to have accurate statistics on these
things so we could just say, okay, here is the right statistic.
And I am very much in favor of that.
The bill says very simply, and--I applaud simplicity, and I
appreciate Chairman Conyers' simplicity in the bill.
It is basically, you know, just barely more than a page
that says the data on all crimes of animal cruelty will be
collected and made publicly available. But as I mentioned in
the opening statement, you know, they are not required to
collect and gather that data on a local level.
I have had sheriffs tell me that--and this is anecdotal, so
I don't have hard evidence other than just telling me--man, we
have had a lot more horses turned loose and, you know, we just
deal with it. But it has been a problem.
But then they would throw it, but I don't need all those
folks after me, so don't get me in the middle of this.
So that gets kind of tough to get accurate information. Is
this anecdotal? This is one horse they have dealt with? Is this
dozens of horses?
But then I did personally hear from a dear, sweet lady who
is dedicated to helping underprivileged children. She has got a
form that she uses for underprivileged children.
And she contacted me and said if we can't sell your horses
like this when they are at the end of their usefulness, I can't
keep accepting horses that people donate. She said the trouble
with that is these horses really open the kids up. They----
And we have got some special-needs schools in my county, in
my district, where they use horses. And horses have an amazing
ability--I am sure most of you all know--to--when kids get
around them, they all of a sudden become more open and become
more easily educated.
But she said, I can't afford to take money away from what
we use for the kids to dispose of the horses. And so she was
supporting not having laws to close the facilities.
And so I have wondered, you know, is there a middle ground?
Is there some way to make sure that these horses are not so
inhumanely treated?
I am just curious what would be, in your opinion, the best
way to euthanize a horse? I am not terribly convinced that we
are all that humane, oftentimes, dealing with cats and dogs.
So--yeah, Dr. Dodman?
Mr. Dodman. Well, I can address that and, you know, if we
had the support of the veterinary bodies like the AVMA and the
AAEP, we could form a committee and come to a consensus.
But, you know, I have dropped to the ground thousands of
horses in my life. I can drop them on a dime. They fall to the
ground very gently and peacefully.
I could design a regimen in a place where a horse is put
behind a squeeze board and is injected with certain drugs where
he would just fall quietly to the ground.
I did it over and over every day, sometimes several times a
day. I could take a horse in a field, and I can give him a
double cocktail, and I could have him sink peacefully to sleep,
and then I can administer an intravenous--I mean, I could
easily----
Mr. Gohmert. So injection, you believe, is the best way to
do this?
Mr. Dodman. Really, the only way.
I was involved a little bit with the human euthanasia
situation, and I don't think the human situation is
particularly kind with the triple combination that was recently
voted as okay.
And my testimony there was that, you know, a straight
barbiturate injection would be, by far, the best way to
euthanize a person. And I don't know why they had that----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, just a follow up on that.
I have been given information that AAEP and the AVMA both
advocate the captive bolt method for euthanasia. Is that
correct?
Mr. Dodman. Well, a little bit, sir.
See, the thing is what they say is--which is true--is that
if you take, say, a big practice down in Kentucky or something
which was recently talked about by Dr. Bramlidge, his
neighboring practice--under certain circumstances, when a horse
is in a situation of extremeness, when the blood pressure is
extremely low, when the drugs are going to travel slowly to
where they are supposed to go, perhaps, equipment prevailing,
if you have a skilled operator and a stationary horse, a
captive bolt may be a second string way of killing a horse.
But it isn't humane the way it is done in the euthanasia
process when the bobbing, moving head by unskilled operators
who have, obviously, no compassion for animals, shouting,
swearing, banging. I mean, the horses----
Recently, we heard of cattle, which are much quieter
animals, that 2 percent of cattle are improperly stunned. My
estimate was 30 percent of horses are improperly stunned for
that very reason.
That is a totally different situation from AVMA's position
in the field with a skilled operator using a captive bolt in an
animal that is not appropriate for IV drugs.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay.
Can I have unanimous consent to allow Dr. Corey to add--you
had something to add, Doctor?
Mr. Corey. Yes.
If you don't mind, I would like to comment on that.
First of all, veterinarians--equine veterinarians--
euthanasia is not--is not fun. Nobody likes to--excuse me--
euthanize an animal.
But the AVMA did engage a panel in the year 2000, I believe
it was or 2001, on a panel on euthanasia, and they came up with
three forms: The use of barbiturates, the use of captive bolt,
and gun shot were the three.
And those guidelines were reinforced, I believe, in 2007.
So those are up to date, and no matter how you euthanize a
horse, not every one is going to react the same.
I don't care whether you use barbiturates or captive bolt,
every one will be a little different.
It would be nice if every one went down--every horse went
down the same, but not all react the same to euthanasia. And
never is it a fun thing to do.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
Mr. Pacelle. May I comment briefly on that? All right.
I think, you know, there is one thing when you are talking
about the difference between barbiturates and captive bolt and
gun shot. But the added factor here in terms of the welfare--
the animal welfare equation is the long-distance transport.
If you do this to the animal at the site, whether it is a
gun shot, captive bolt, or barbiturates, you know you are
basically going to, you know--the animal may suffer for a
couple of minutes more.
But when you transport the animal a thousand miles or 1500
miles, you know it is going to be hours or days. And that, I
think, is the central animal welfare question for us.
On the handling of the carcasses, I do want to point out
that there are 34 million cattle slaughtered in America every
year. The USDA says there are 1 to 2 million dead stock--cattle
who die on the farms.
The farmers are already disposing of those bodies which are
functionally equivalent in terms of the weight.
Mr. Gohmert. And, hopefully, most of them are doing it
appropriately.
Mr. Pacelle. Right.
Mr. Gohmert. I have got concerns about that.
Mr. Pacelle. We are already disposing of large bodies of
mammals in farming situations. And there are mechanisms for it,
and there are may be some costs.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
And I have to say, I don't think I have ever heard anybody
say they were able to stop a horse on a--or drop a horse on a
dime. That is a little different.
But anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very
indulging of the time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Are there other questions?
If not, I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony
today.
Witnesses, Members may have additional written questions
which we will forward to you and ask that you answer as
promptly as you can in order that the answers may be made part
of the record.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
1 week for the submission of additional materials.
And without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in convening today's
very important hearing on H.R. 6598, the ``Prevention of Equine Cruelty
Act of 2008'' and H.R. 6597, the ``Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of
2008.''
The hearing will examine the paucity of data regarding animal
cruelty crimes, along with H.R. 6597, which would require the Attorney
General to collect data on the commission of animal cruelty crimes.
This hearing also will examine current practices regarding the
slaughter of horses for human consumption, and H.R. 6598, which would
criminalize the sale, purchase, receipt, delivery, possession,
transportation, and shipment of horses for the purpose of human
consumption.
Legislation is needed on animal cruelty. The government currently
does not collect specific data on animal cruelty crimes. Rather, the
data, if collected at all, is usually included in an ``other crimes''
section that yields no useful information on the problem. Numerous data
bases exist that could collect this information if the databases were
modified in a manner to require the entry of specific data regarding
animal cruelty crimes.
The comprehensive and consistent collection of data on animal
cruelty crimes would provide heightened awareness to the problem of
animal cruelty and could assist in the meaningful allocation of
resources to fight the problem of animal cruelty. In addition, the
collection of data on such crimes could also be helpful in combating
domestic violence, as social science research indicates an association
between animal abuse and family violence. Numerous groups fighting
domestic violence have supported the collection of animal cruelty data
specifically because of this strong connection with family violence.
a. h.r. 6597, the ``animal cruelty statistics act of 2008''
I support H.R. 6597. H.R. 6597, the ``Animal Cruelty Statistics Act
of 2008'' also requires the collection of data on animal cruelty
crimes. It does not mandate the creation of a separate offense category
or specify the relevant databases. Rather, it directs the Attorney
General to make appropriate changes to existing crime data bases so
that data on animal cruelty crimes will be collected and made available
to the public.
The approach of allowing the Attorney General to determine the best
way to collect the data, as opposed to mandating the creation of a new
category, was preferred for a number of reasons. First, the Attorney
General is the most familiar with crime databases and is in the best
position to determine how best to collect this information. Second,
since its creation in the 1920s, the UCR has added only one new
category, and that was for arson. A bill that mandates the creation of
a new category could create a precedent that could prove cumbersome in
the future. Third, the UCR and certain other crime databases are
voluntary and it was determined that mandating changes to voluntary
systems may not be appropriate and may not yield comprehensive results.
b. h.r. 6598, the ``prevention of equine cruelty act of 2008''
I support. H.R. 6598, which has bipartisan support, criminalizes
the possession, shipment, transport, purchase, sale, delivery or
receipt of any horse with the intent that it be slaughtered for human
consumption. The bill also criminalizes the shipment of horse carcasses
or flesh for the purpose of human consumption. The law provides for
both misdemeanor and felony offenses. A first time offender whose
conduct involves less than five horses or 2000 pounds of horse flesh
would be guilty of a misdemeanor. A repeat offender, or someone whose
crime involves more than five horses or 2000 pounds flesh, faces a
felony conviction with a statutory maximum sentence of three years
prison.
Because legislation is missing in the area of animal cruelty, I
laud these bills as a powerful step toward developing legislation that
will be useful in this area. I urge my colleagues to support these
bills
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the remainder of my time.
Letters from the American Quarter Horse Association, and the Animal
Welfare Council submitted by the Honorable Louie Gohmert, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Letter from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
Letter from Charles W. Stenholm, Olsson Frank Weeda Terman
Bode Matz PC, Attorneys at Law
Additional Material submitted by Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO,
Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DCD included
D to H deg.
Attachments to Prepared Statement of Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO,
Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC