    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                H.R. 2651, THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY ACT OF 2017

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 22, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-143

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    35-128	                    WASHINGTON : 2019

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GENE GREEN, Texas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     JERRY McNERNEY, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            PAUL TONKO, New York
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana                 Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TONY CARDENAS, California
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       RAUL RUIZ, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina

            Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection

                             ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                     Chairman
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            TONY CARDENAS, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina      DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana                   Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           GENE GREEN, Texas
    MIMI WALTERS, California             FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania           officio)
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Ohio, opening statement...............................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Tony Cardenas, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     4
    Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Illinois, opening statement...........................    17

                                   Witnesses

    Andy Barr, A Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of
      Kentucky.......................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Paul Tonko, A Representative in Congress from the State of New
      York...........................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Alan M. Foreman, Chairman and CEO, Thoroughbred Horsemen's
      Association, Inc...............................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
        Answers to submitted questions \1\...........................    91
    Stuart S. Janney, III, Chairman, The Jockey Club.................    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
        Answers to submitted questions \2\...........................    93
    Eric Hamelback, CEO, National Horsemen's Benevolent and
      Protective Association.........................................    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    96
    Kitty Block, Acting President and CEO, Humane Society of the
      United States..................................................    42
        Prepared statement...........................................    44
    Ed Martin, President, Association of Racing Commissioners
      International..................................................    53
        Prepared statement \3\.......................................    55
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    99
    Craig Fravel, CEO, The Breeders' Cup.............................    56
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
        Answers to submitted questions \4\...........................   107

                               Submitted Material

    Documents submitted by Mr. Kinzinger.............................    85
    Statement of ASPCA, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky..................    90
    Documents submitted by Mr. Latta \5\

    ----------
    \1\ The committee did not receive a response to Mr. Foreman's
      submitted questions for the record by the time of printing.
    \2\ The committee did not receive a response to Mr. Janney's
      submitted questions for the record by the time of printing.
    \3\ The attachments to Mr. Martin's statement can be found at:
      https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20180622/108463/HHRG-
      115-IF17-Wstate-MartinE-20180622.pdf.
    \4\ The committee did not receive a response to Mr. Fravel's
      submitted questions for the record by the time of printing.
    \5\ The documents can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/
      meetings/IF/IF17/20180622/108463/HHRG-115-IF17-20180622-
      SD003.pdf.

                H.R. 2651, THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY ACT OF 2017

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
                                            Protection,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Latta, Kinzinger, Burgess, Lance,
    Guthrie, Bilirakis, Bucshon, Mullin, Walters, Costello, Duncan,
    Walden (ex officio), Schakowsky, Cardenas, Welch, Kennedy,
    Green, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff Present: Mike Bloomquist, Staff Director; Karen
    Christian, General Counsel; Melissa Froelich, Chief Counsel,
    Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Ali Fulling,
    Legislative Clerk, Oversight and Investigations/Digital
    Commerce and Consumer Protection; Elena Hernandez, Press
    Secretary; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff Member, Digital
    Commerce and Consumer Protection; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel,
    Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Greg Zerzan, Counsel,
    Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Michelle Ash,
    Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; Caroline Paris-
    Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; and Carolyn Hann, Minority FTC
    Detailee.
        Mr. Latta. Well, good morning. I would like to call the
    subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection to
    order this morning. I welcome you all here this morning.
        And, at this time, the chair is going to recognize the
    gentleman from Oregon, the chairman of the full committee, for
    5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to welcome our witnesses on this panel. And I will
    just stipulate at the beginning, I have to go manage the floor
    debate on H.R. 6, our big wrap-up bill on opioids. So my
    apologies at the head end, but that starts now as well.
        So I will keep my remarks fairly short. I will dispense
    with the discussion about the great thundering herds of
    Mustangs across the high desert of eastern Oregon. My district
    is enormous, and horses and horseracing and rodeo and ranching
    are all part of it.
        But we really appreciate all of you being here today as we
    have this legislative hearing on H.R. 2651, the Horseracing
    Integrity Act of 2017.
        From the American West, the Kentucky Blue Grass, the
    renowned tracks in New York, and beyond, horses hold a very,
    very special place in our hearts and our history. Still today
    across the country, and especially in my district, horses are
    part of the fabric, they are part of our culture, they are part
    of our economy.
        My district is home to the world famous Pendleton Round-Up,
    one of the great rodeos of the West, and local races at places
    like Prineville and Frenchglen and everywhere else. As you all
    know and appreciate, horseracing in particular has a storied
    history in this country and remains an important economic
    driver.
        Our discussion of Mr. Barr and Mr. Tonko's bill is also
    very timely. Earlier this month, the world witnessed history as
    Justify became the 13th horse to complete the Triple Crown.
        Today, we will hear from you, the experts, about the
    horseracing industry, how it is currently regulated, and what
    can be done to protect these wonderful, wonderful animals. We
    want to know your thoughts on the legislation at hand--we know
    you have different thoughts on it, depending upon your position
    on this issue--its impact on the industry, and how best to
    promote the vitality and integrity of this celebrated sport.
        You all have insights that will help inform us as to how we
    can address some of the concerns that currently exist in the
    industry. So I thank you all for being here today for this
    important, important discussion, and I am looking forward to
    your perspectives on this bill and this sport.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
    my time, and, as we like to say in eastern Oregon, ``Let 'er
    buck.''
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for appearing
    before us today to participate in our legislative hearing on
    H.R. 2651, the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017.
        From the American West, to the Kentucky bluegrass, to the
    renowned tracks in New York and beyond, horses hold a special
    place in our history.
        Still today, across the country, and especially in Oregon's
    Second District, horses are part of the fabric of our culture
    and economy. My district is home to the world famous Pendleton
    Round-Up and local races at Prineville's Crooked River Ranch
    Round-Up.
        As you all know and appreciate, horseracing, in particular,
    has a storied history in this country and remains an important
    economic driver.
        Our discussion of Mr. Barr and Mr. Tonko's bill is also
    very timely. Earlier this month, the world witnessed history as
    Justify became the 13th horse to complete the Triple Crown.
        Today, we will hear from you, the experts, about the
    horseracing industry, how it is currently regulated, and what
    can be done to protect these wonderful animals. We want to know
    your thoughts on the legislation at hand, its impact on the
    industry, and how best to promote the vitality and integrity of
    this celebrated sport.
        You all have insights that will help inform us as to how we
    can address some of the concerns that currently exist in the
    industry. I thank you all for being here today for this
    important discussion and I am looking forward to your
    perspectives on this bill and this sport.
        I yield back the balance of my time, and as we like to say
    in eastern Oregon, let `er buck!

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Latta. OK. The gentleman yields back. Thank you very
    much.
        And, at this time, because they are delayed right now, the
    ranking member of the subcommittee and the ranking member of
    the full committee haven't arrived, we will informally pass on
    their opening statements, but I will go right into my opening
    statement at this time.
        Again, I want to thank you all very much for appearing
    today before us to discuss Representative Barr's and
    Representative Tonko's legislation, H.R. 2651, the Horseracing
    Integrity Act of 2017.
        This legislation will establish an independent, nonprofit
    authority, the Horseracing Anti-Doping and Medication Control
    Authority. This authority would be tasked with developing and
    administering an anti-doping and medication control program for
    horseraces and affiliated persons.
        The bill also aims to ban the use of medication 24 hours
    before a race, which advocates and opponents tell the committee
    would result in a ban on the use of LASIX, a widely used
    medication that is administered 4 hours prior to post time to
    treat exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging.
        Horseracing has a long and distinguished history in the
    United States. Just a couple weeks ago, on June 9, millions of
    Americans watched as Justify, a Thoroughbred racehorse jockeyed
    by 52-year-old veteran Mike Smith, became the 13th winner of
    the Triple Crown. This was a historic accomplishment celebrated
    across the globe.
        It is also notable that horseracing is an international
    sport. Although the races of the Triple Crown are the world's
    most prestigious, other annual events in the United Kingdom,
    France, Australia, the United Arab Emirates, and around the
    globe demonstrate the worldwide appeal of this ancient sport.
        Here in the United States, at least 32 States have
    horseracing tracks, stretching from California to Maine,
    including my home State of Ohio. These tracks provides the base
    of an industry that has a far-reaching and significant impact
    on the U.S. economy.
        Last year, approximately 51,000 horses competed in about
    41,000 races, competing for a total purse of more than $1
    billion. According to a recent study, the equine industry
    generates more than $120 billion in total economic impact and
    provides a total employment impact of almost 1.8 million jobs.
    In my home State of Ohio, horseracing generates $715 million in
    annual revenue and supports more than 16,000 jobs.
        Horseracing is an important part of the American fabric,
    both as a sport and as a source of entertainment. Ensuring the
    integrity of the sport is important to owners, competitors, and
    fans alike. I look forward to hearing the views of our
    witnesses today on this legislation.
        And, with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
    And, at this time, I will recognize the gentleman from
    California for a 5-minute opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

        Good morning and thank you to our distinguished panel for
    appearing before us today to discuss Representative Barr and
    Tonko's legislation, H.R. 2651, the Horseracing Integrity Act
    of 2017.
        This legislation establishes an independent non-profit
    authority, the Horseracing Anti-Doping and Medication Control
    Authority. This Authority would be tasked with developing and
    administering an anti-doping and medication control program for
    race horses and affiliated persons. The bill also aims to ban
    the use of medication 24 hours before a race, which advocates
    and opponents tell the committee would result in a ban on the
    use of Lasix, a widely used medication that is administered 4
    hours prior to post time to treat exercise-induced pulmonary
    hemorrhaging.
        Horseracing has a long and distinguished history in the
    United States. Just a couple of weeks ago, on June 9th,
    millions of Americans watched as Justify, a thoroughbred
    racehorse, jockeyed by 52-year-old veteran Mike Smith, became
    the 13th winner of the Triple Crown. This was a historic
    accomplishment, celebrated across the globe.
        It is also notable that horse racing is an international
    sport. Although the races of the Triple Crown are the world's
    most prestigious, other annual events in the United Kingdom,
    France, Australia, the United Arab Emirates and around the
    globe demonstrate the world-wide appeal of this ancient sport.
        Here in the United States at least 32 states have horse
    racing tracks, stretching from California to Maine, including
    my home State of Ohio. These tracks provide the basis of an
    industry that has a far-reaching and significant impact on the
    U.S. economy.
        Last year, approximately 51,000 horses competed in about
    41,000 races competing for a total purse of more than $1
    billion. According to a recent study, the equine industry
    generates more than $120 billion in total economic impact and
    provides a total employment impact of almost 1.8 million jobs.
    In my home State of Ohio, horse racing generates $750 million
    in annual revenue and supports more than 16,000 jobs.
        Horseracing is an important part of the American fabric,
    both as a sport and as a source of entertainment. Ensuring the
    integrity of the sport is important to owners, competitors and
    fans alike. I look forward to hearing the views of our
    witnesses today on the legislation.
        Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TONY CARDENAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta, for
    having this hearing. And I would like to thank my colleagues
    for introducing this legislation.
        Good morning, everybody. I am glad to cosponsor this
    bipartisan legislation, and I applaud Representatives Barr and
    Tonko for its introduction. As a longtime advocate of ensuring
    welfare protections for animals, I am glad that we are having a
    hearing on the implications of drug use in the horseracing
    industry.
        While it is true that most states currently have
    regulations on drug use in horseracing, there is very little
    uniformity. This legislation is important because it would
    establish an independent authority to oversee the industry,
    which would include members of the United States Anti-Doping
    Agency, USADA, an organization that has been very effective at
    overseeing drug use in other sports.
        The main purpose of the regulatory authority is to
    implement a uniform anti-doping program and to create a
    national standard that ensures all states are following the
    same rules.
        Like humans, overmedication of horses can be extremely
    dangerous. According to data released by the American Jockey
    Club, about 493 Thoroughbred horses died in 2017. While there
    may be several reasons for these equine deaths, it is hard to
    point to other factors when over 90 percent of Thoroughbreds in
    the United States receive some form of race-day medication.
        It is critical that we have an organization to provide
    oversight to this industry. We need to make sure that there is
    fairness in horseracing, but the main focus should always be on
    the welfare of the horses and the safety of the jockeys.
        I look forward to hearing from our colleagues, who are
    about to ensure that safety in this sport that many of us have
    enjoyed is now in a better place.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
        And, at this time, as I mentioned, we will informally pass
    on the ranking member's statement. When he gets here, he can
    give his statement, but that will conclude the opening
    statements from our members.
        The chair reminds members that, pursuant to committee
    rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the
    record.
        At this time, I ask unanimous consent that Energy and
    Commerce members not on the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce
    and Consumer Protection be permitted to participate in today's
    hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        And, pursuant to House rules, members that are not on the
    committee are able to attend the meeting but will not be able
    to ask questions.
        At this time, we want to thank our witnesses for being with
    us today. Greatly appreciate you coming before the subcommittee
    to testify.
        Our first panel will be recognized for opening statements,
    and then, without recessing, we will seat our second panel of
    witnesses, who will be recognized for their opening statements.
    And then members will have an opportunity to ask questions.
        Our first panel of witnesses are the original cosponsors of
    H.R. 2651, Representative Andy Barr from the great State of
    Kentucky and Representative Paul Tonko from the great State of
    New York.
        I thank you both for being here.
        And, Mr. Barr, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    opening statement. Thank you.

    STATEMENTS OF HON. ANDY BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
    THE COMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE
                 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

                      STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY BARR

        Mr. Barr. Thank you, Chairman Latta. Thank you to Chairman
    Walden, as well, and to Mr. Cardenas and the ranking member for
    holding this hearing on our legislation, H.R. 2651, the
    Horseracing Integrity Act.
        When I was first elected to Congress, I dedicated my
    service to promoting the signature industries of Kentucky, and
    nothing is more synonymous with our commonwealth than
    thoroughbred breeding and horseracing.
        My district, in particular, holds the title ``Horse Capital
    of the World.'' Now, 11 of the 13 Triple Crown winners were
    foaled in the Sixth District, including the most recent
    champion, Justify. Lexington, Kentucky is surrounded by more
    than 400 world-class horse farms, including Ashford Stud, the
    home of the last Triple Crown winner, American Pharoah. And
    Keeneland racecourse hosts many notable races, including the
    Toyota Blue Grass Stakes and the 2015 Breeders' Cup.
        However, this sport is not only prominent in our district,
    but horseracing is truly a national sport. Therefore,
    advocating for this industry requires more than just
    celebrating a proud heritage. With the privilege of
    representing the Horse Capital of the World comes the
    responsibility of fighting for its future. And, as the chairman
    pointed out, this is not just a sport; this is an industry with
    enormous economic benefit and enormous impact in terms of job
    creation.
        That is why I, with my fellow co-chair of the Congressional
    Horse Caucus, Representative Paul Tonko, introduced the
    Horseracing Integrity Act to enact reforms that would ensure
    the industry continues to grow and prosper.
        Currently regulated by 38 separate jurisdictions, our
    signature racing industry labors under a patchwork of
    conflicting and inconsistent state-based rules governing
    prohibited substances, lab accreditation, testing, and
    penalties for violations. This lack of uniformity has impeded
    interstate commerce, compromised the international
    competitiveness of the industry, and undermined public
    confidence in the integrity of our sport.
        H.R. 2651 would remedy these problems by authorizing the
    creation of a nongovernmental anti-doping authority, the
    Horseracing Anti-Doping and Medication Control Authority,
    governed by representatives of all major constituencies of the
    industry and responsible for implementing a national, uniform
    medication program for the horseracing industry.
        Today, you will hear from many supporters of this bill, and
    you will hear from critics of this legislation on the panels to
    follow. The critics will say that this legislation will create
    a new duplicative regulatory bureaucracy at the Federal level
    and will duplicate what states are already doing. They will say
    it increases regulation. They will say it bans LASIX, which is
    currently legal to administer on race day in the United States.
    And they will say they have concerns with the ability of the
    United States Anti-Doping Agency to regulate this program.
        It is true that the industry has made notable strides in
    recent years to adopt uniform standards. The work of the Racing
    Medication and Testing Consortium and the NTRA's Safety &
    Integrity Alliance has been positive and should be commended.
        But, to date, only 11 of the 38 racing jurisdictions with
    laws permitting parimutuel horseracing have adopted all 4
    elements of the National Uniform Medication Program. The
    remaining state racing jurisdictions operate under only rules
    applicable to that state and have great variances. Of the
    leading racing states, like New York, California, Florida, or
    Kentucky, none have fully implemented NUMP.
        As a conservative who believes in federalism and states'
    rights, I also understand that the Constitution gives Congress
    the power to regulate interstate commerce precisely for the
    purpose of eliminating these kinds of impediments to interstate
    exchange.
        A national, uniform medication program is not about
    creating more bureaucracy or more regulation. In fact, this
    legislation reduces regulations by replacing 38 state-by-state
    regulatory regimes with a single national, uniform set of
    standards.
        To address concerns with the dispersion of specific drugs,
    H.R. 2651 does not ban the administration of LASIX for truly
    therapeutic purposes. Rather, it prohibits trainers from
    administering these drugs on race day. So it preserves out-of-
    competition therapeutic administration.
        This would bring U.S. regulation in line with other
    horseracing counterparts in places like Europe, Dubai, and Hong
    Kong, ultimately eliminating the perception of unfair
    competition and enhancing the reputation of U.S. racing on an
    international level, which is important for the international
    sales and exports of our breeding stock as well.
        Finally, USADA's involvement through the HADA would bring
    the sport independence, expertise, and credibility. The HADA
    will be made up of USADA and industry officials, thus
    benefiting from the experience of officials and individuals
    tasked with addressing the challenges presented in horseracing
    today.
        And H.R. 2651 would address many of the issues confronting
    the industry, increase the popularity and public confidence and
    international competitiveness of the sport.
        In the wake of Justify's historic Triple Crown, it is
    important we use this momentum to continue to fight for the
    future of this special industry.
        And I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barr follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman from Kentucky yields back, and the chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from New York for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair.
        And I do want to offer my thanks here publicly to Chairman
    Walden and Ranking Member Pallone for the opportunity for the
    hearing. And, likewise, thank you, Chair Latta and Ranking
    Member Schakowsky and Ranking Member Cardenas, today for the
    opportunity to testify before you on the importance of
    promoting uniformity and integrity in the horseracing industry.
        You might think a New York Democrat and a Kentucky
    Republican can't agree on much, but we have developed a strong
    working relationship on this issue because we both love the
    sport of horseracing and want to see it thrive.
        I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today to
    learn about what we can do to improve this sport of kings and
    ensure the sport continues to thrive well into the future. We
    have a distinguished panel of witnesses from across the
    spectrum to share their thoughts with us on this important
    issue, and I look forward to hearing from them.
        As home to the Nation's oldest track, the Saratoga Race
    Course, my home area has been long steeped in the storied
    tradition of horseracing, dating back to 1863. The equine
    industry is an important economic driver for the State of New
    York, with an estimated economic impact of some $5.3 billion
    annually.
        In 2015, I had the chance to see in person the sport at its
    very best when I bore witness to the historic run by American
    Pharoah at the Belmont track to capture the Triple Crown.
        When we place a majestic equine athlete like American
    Pharoah or our newest Triple Crown champion, Justify, front and
    center, this endeavor can capture truly the imagination of our
    nation, and the sport of the horseracing can continue to grow
    in our hearts.
        However, we have all seen the devastating results that can
    occur when these equine athletes are pushed beyond their
    limits, often aided by medications that can mask underlying
    health issues. This dangerous race-at-all-costs mentality
    denigrates the sport and should be unacceptable to anyone in
    the horseracing community.
        This same story has played out countless times across the
    country because the current voluntary national uniform
    medication reforms have been implemented unevenly, leaving
    patchwork systems in place that have created a wide disparity
    in the effectiveness of medication testing and enforcement.
        This piecemeal, voluntary approach is not only detrimental
    to the health of our beloved horses, it denigrates the
    perception of the sport and certainly puts other athletes, like
    our jockeys, at risk.
        Now, my colleague Andy Barr indicated some of the
    statistics on those voluntary medication efforts, so I won't
    repeat them. But if horseracing is to thrive as an industry and
    once again capture the public's imagination, we must and we can
    do better.
        On this point, the public strongly agrees. More than 90
    percent of the public and 90 percent of horse players want to
    see stronger action on uniform medication reform. In a sport
    built on the integrity of competition, nothing is more
    important than a level playing field for the horses, the
    jockeys, and the trainers who compete, as well as the fans who
    wager on the races.
        While the voluntary approach is well-meaning, the lack of
    effective followthrough has negatively impacted the perception
    of fair competition across the sport and has done little to
    build confidence in the minds of our sports fans and our sports
    critics, many of whom are concerned about drug use and testing.
        By creating a strong, transparent, and independent--let me
    repeat that--independent anti-doping authority, we can
    guarantee fair play, improve the health of our horses, and
    bring new energy and spectators to this majestic sport.
        That is why I have joined with my friend Representative
    Barr in introducing the Horseracing Integrity Act. The
    legislation we have introduced would create a national,
    independent horseracing anti-doping authority responsible for
    rulemaking, testing, and enforcement oversight regarding drugs
    and medication.
        This new organization would be chaired by representatives
    at the independent United States Anti-Doping Agency, or USADA,
    a nonprofit, nongovernmental institution. The board of the new
    organization would also include voices representing a spectrum
    of perspectives within the horseracing industry, including our
    owners, our breeders, our horsemen, our racetracks, and
    certainly our veterinarians.
        The new organization would be responsible for determining
    permitted and prohibited substances, a schedule of sanctions
    for violations, testing procedures, standards, protocols,
    laboratory accreditation procedures, and due-process procedures
    for violations.
        Many have questioned why horseracing should be partnering
    with USADA, an organization with no history in the sport. While
    the physiological makeup of horses and humans are different,
    the need and method for effective testing protocols, uniform
    standards and penalties, as well as proper lab accreditation is
    the same. This is where USADA's real strength as an
    organization lies.
        The horseracing anti-doping authority approach would
    implement horseracing industry best practices for uniform
    testing, uniform penalties, well-designed out-of-competition
    testing, and fully accredited labs to deter cheaters and
    appropriately penalize violators.
        One of the major strengths of this legislation is that,
    from the outset, we engaged a broad coalition of stakeholders,
    both inside and outside the industry, interested in medication
    reform. That is why we were able to gain support from a diverse
    range of organizations, including animal welfare groups like
    the Human Society of the United States; horse groups like The
    Jockey Club, the Breeders' Cup, the New York Racing
    Association, and the grassroots Water, Hay, Oats Alliance; in
    addition to some of the largest track owners in our country.
    Since the legislation was introduced, we have broadened this
    coalition even further and look to work with any stakeholder
    interested in uniformity and clean sporting.
        Again, I look forward to hearing from our diverse panel
    today about what they are seeing on the ground and how best we
    can move forward together to strengthen this sport of kings.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        The gentleman yields back.
        And I want to thank you both for your testimony before us
    today.
        And that will conclude our first panel of witnesses, and we
    will move on now to our second panel.
        So thank you very much, gentlemen, for your testimony.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for appearing before
    the subcommittee.
        And as I mentioned a little bit earlier, we informally
    passed on the gentlelady from Illinois' opening statement, so
    at this time she is recognized for 5 minutes.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I thank the chairman for that
    courtesy and the indulgence of the panel.
        And thank you all for being here.
        The Horseracing Integrity Act introduced by Representatives
    Barr and Tonko is a critical piece of legislation. It is past
    time that we address the glaring issues within the horse
    industry.
        This is very personal for me. As a former owner of a horse,
    named B.J. Sullivan, I know how important these majestic
    animals are. I have fond memories of tending to and riding
    horses with my grandfather as a young girl.
        I have also been a longtime supporter of animal welfare
    protections. You should just know, of all the issues that are
    going on, animal rights of some sort, always in the top five of
    the communications that I get from my constituents, which I
    find really interesting, ranging from pollinators to dogs and
    cats and all other kinds of endangered species.
        I am happy that Representative Barr and Tonko have
    introduced this updated legislation, and I am proud to be a
    cosponsor. I was the lead cosponsor of similar legislation in
    2013 with Representative Pitts that addressed some of the same
    concerns with doping and horseracing. The new Barr-Tonko bill
    incorporates many of those things.
        Specifically, the legislation was expanded to include
    Standardbred and Quarter Horses. All racehorses should be
    afforded the same protection under this legislation.
        Most notably, it places a ban on race-day medication, which
    I feel is the most important change to the legislation. Drugs
    such as LASIX are often misused in order to increase a horse's
    performance during the race. Proponents of using LASIX will
    claim that it is similar to giving a horse a vaccination and is
    used to prevent bleeding. However, the reality is that the drug
    is masking an underlying health issue with the horse as well as
    the possible presence of illegal substances.
        The use of these drugs jeopardizes the long-term health and
    safety of the horse. More than 90 percent of the horses in the
    United States compete on LASIX. In most international racing,
    the drug is banned on race day. The United States should learn
    from those other countries. We are literally running horses
    into the ground.
        Recent data by the American Jockey Club found that 493
    Thoroughbred horses died in 2017. If human athletes were dying
    at this rate while racing, it would be clear that there was a
    problem that needed to be fixed. These glaring numbers harm the
    integrity of the industry.
        Horses in these sports deserve real protections. For too
    long, we have allowed the industry to self-regulate without any
    real progress in ensuring protection and stopping the bad
    actors. The Horseracing Integrity Act would address many of
    these issues plaguing the industry. It would allow an
    independent regulatory body to oversee the industry, create a
    national standard that ensures states are following the same
    rules, and implement a uniform anti-doping program that
    prohibits race-day drugs.
        The future of horseracing depends on this universal
    regulatory body. We must ensure that we are protecting horses
    and stopping the bad actors who are endangering the lives of
    these horses, jockeys, and the fate of the industry itself that
    so many people love. If we have banned doping in other sports,
    why not ban it in the horseracing industry?
        I look forward to hearing the testimony on how we can
    continue to protect equines and the integrity of the
    horseracing industry.
        And I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
        And, again, I want to thank our witnesses for coming before
    us today to testify.
        Our second panel of witnesses will be able to present with
    a 5-minute opening statement followed by a round of questions
    from our members.
        Our second witness panel for today's hearing will include
    Mr. Alan Foreman, the Chairman and CEO of the Thoroughbred
    Horsemen's Association, Inc.; Mr. Stuart S. Janney, Chairman of
    The Jockey Club; Mr. Eric Hamelback, the CEO of the National
    Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association; Ms. Kitty
    Block, Acting President and CEO of the Humane Society of the
    United States; Mr. Ed Martin, the President of the Association
    of Racing Commissioners International; and Mr. Craig Fravel,
    the CEO of the Breeders' Cup.
        Again, we want to thank you all for being here today.
        And, Mr. Foreman, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    opening statement. Thank you very much.

     STATEMENTS OF ALAN M. FOREMAN, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, THOROUGHBRED
     HORSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.; STUART S. JANNEY III, CHAIRMAN,
       THE JOCKEY CLUB; ERIC HAMELBACK, CEO, NATIONAL HORSEMEN'S
      BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION; KITTY BLOCK, ACTING
      PRESIDENT AND CEO, HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES; ED
        MARTIN, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF RACING COMMISSIONERS
        INTERNATIONAL; AND CRAIG FRAVEL, CEO, THE BREEDERS' CUP

                      STATEMENT OF ALAN M. FOREMAN

        Mr. Foreman. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member
    Schakowsky. Good morning, members of the subcommittee.
        I am proud and honored to be invited to participate this
    morning to defend the honor and integrity of the racing
    industry and to oppose what is tantamount to a Federal takeover
    of a state-sanctioned, state-regulated industry where no basis
    to do so exists.
        H.R. 2651 is not in the best interests of the racing
    industry and is an ill-conceived effort by certain special
    interests to impose their minority and special-interest views
    on the regulation of our industry. We have deep reservations
    about the provisions contained in this legislation because of
    its potential adverse impact on the health, welfare, and safety
    of our horses and the economics of the industry.
        Although the proponents would have you believe that this
    bill is a simple effort at uniformity that enjoys broad-based
    industry support, nothing could be further from the truth.
    While certainly this legislation has been divisive, there is
    broad-based consensus, a remarkably broad consensus, comprising
    more than 55 industry organizations and stakeholder groups,
    covering all 3 racing breeds, the regulators, and the
    veterinary community, and that consensus is united in its
    opposition to H.R. 2651.
        H.R. 2651 purports to create a system for the uniform
    regulation and use of medication in the racing industry, but
    such a uniform system already exists, and it works well.
    Performance-enhancing drugs are not allowed in a horse on race
    day in horseracing, unlike in human professional and amateur
    sports competitions. There is total uniformity on this issue in
    every racing jurisdiction. And racing has uniform rules,
    policies, guidelines, and laboratory testing in all racing
    states that are superior to any sport or business in the world.
    And our system is totally transparent.
        We strongly support the existing mechanism by which
    medication policies are formulated. These scientifically based
    policies form the basis of the regulatory scheme currently in
    place, made after thoughtful deliberation and dialogue that
    includes input from an important array of organizations,
    including, most importantly, the Racing Medication and Testing
    Consortium, which serves as the industry's scientific and
    policy arm.
        As a demonstration of the ongoing efforts to improve our
    current system, the racing industry is currently in the process
    of adopting major changes nationally in five areas identified
    as in need of improvement, including enhanced out-of-
    competition testing.
        H.R. 2651 seeks to replace our current state regulatory
    system with a new Federal bureaucracy on top of a state system
    that has existed for over a century, with governance stripped
    from the states and given to a private group of handpicked,
    uninformed, and unqualified individuals who know little to
    nothing about the racing industry or the health and welfare of
    the horse, including USADA, which does not now nor has it ever
    had any involvement in the equine sport.
        It contains an unfunded mandate that gives unfettered
    taxing authority to this private, federally appointed group
    without any accountability to the states with the taxes to pay
    for their bureaucracy that will be ultimately assessed to horse
    owners. It will deprive horsemen of their current due-process
    protections under state law and throw them into the Federal
    judicial system.
        We believe that H.R. 2651, like its predecessor version
    that the Congressional Research Service previously deemed most
    likely as being unconstitutional, is unconstitutional for the
    same reasons and, more particularly, in light of the Supreme
    Court's recent decision in Murphy v. NCAA. I can assure you
    that H.R. 2651, if passed, will be challenged in court by
    states objecting to a Federal takeover of their state-
    sanctioned and state-regulated industries, and our industry
    will be consumed in costly and protracted litigation that can
    only harm its economic well-being.
        So the question, therefore, that has to be asked is: What
    is the crisis? What is the overriding Federal interest that
    requires the Federal Government to cast aside the states in a
    sweeping takeover of a state-sanctioned, state-regulated
    industry that does its jobs well? The answer is: There is none,
    because H.R. 2651 is not really about uniformity.
        Couched as an attempt at nationwide uniformity on the issue
    and regulation of medication in racing, which the industry
    already does quite well, this bill is actually nothing more
    than a smokescreen for the proponents' true purpose, which they
    have unsuccessfully been trying to accomplish for the past 5
    years: the elimination from racing of a safe, prophylactic,
    effective, necessary medication known as LASIX given on race
    day.
        H.R. 2651 enables an end-run around a 30-year industry
    scientifically based welfare policy that has been universally
    adopted by state regulators. To eliminate this medication would
    cause great economic consequences throughout every level of
    this industry and cause the greatest equine welfare crisis we
    have ever known. This is not hyperbole; this is fact.
        Finally, our mandate which drives everything we do in this
    industry is to protect the health and welfare of the horse, the
    integrity of our sport, the fairness of competition, and the
    best interest of the betting public. I can assure this
    committee that there is not a day in this industry when we are
    not laser-focused on these core principles. H.R. 2651 does not
    meet these standards.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Foreman follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Janney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF STUART S. JANNEY III

        Mr. Janney. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
    Schakowsky, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to speak at today's hearing on the
    Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017.
        This issue is extremely important to the Thoroughbred
    industry and especially to The Jockey Club, which has been
    advocating for medication reform in our sport for decades. The
    Jockey Club is the breed registry for the Thoroughbreds in the
    United States and Canada. As the chairman of The Jockey Club, I
    would like to explain why this legislation is so important to
    us.
        If we reflect on racing's history, we understand that until
    the 1960s racing was local. I grew up in Maryland, and my
    parents were very successful in Maryland racing. On rare
    occasions, they ventured to New York with a good horse, but,
    essentially, they raced only in Maryland. Who bet on their
    horses? People in Maryland who went to the Maryland tracks.
    Thus, it made sense that their racing activities were regulated
    by the State of Maryland. And, by and large, it worked.
        Then, two things happened. First, people learned how well
    horses travel. They can step off a van in the morning, run well
    in the afternoon, and then travel home that night without a
    problem. Second, interstate simulcasting was introduced. In
    1978, Congress passed the Interstate Horseracing Act, which
    enabled simulcasting and wagering across state lines.
        However, the state regulatory structure never changed. I
    want you to realize that our Triple Crown races are conducted
    under different sets of rules--what drugs can be administered,
    withdrawal times for those drugs, penalties, and security
    protocols. They are all different. Over the last couple of
    weeks alone, I have run horses in New York, New Jersey,
    Maryland, and Kentucky. In total, I need licenses in nine
    states, every one with a different set of rules.
        These are the facts of thoroughbred racing today. Our sport
    is international. Our horses are sold to buyers around the
    world. Our stallions shuttle among continents, and bets cross
    state and national borders. And that is the fastest growing
    segment of our wagering.
        We are entering an age of sports betting when racing will
    hopefully share betting platforms with many other sports, none
    of which play by different rules on a state-by-state basis.
        Opponents of this bill will tell you instances of cheating
    are remote, drug positives declining, the states are well on
    their way to uniformity, that the rules we have are fine, that
    their horses need race-day medication even though the rest of
    the world prohibits it, that out-of-competition testing isn't
    necessary.
        Well, let me tell you about Murray Rojas, a trainer in
    Pennsylvania who is charged with wire fraud, conspiracy, and
    misbranding of prescription drugs. A fellow trainer testified
    that private veterinarians told horsemen which drugs were being
    tested for at the state's lab. Horsemen, of course, requested
    race-day treatments accordingly to avoid getting caught, based
    on that knowledge. That was bad, but the performance of the
    racing commission was worse. They did nothing, and the FBI had
    to get involved.
        It is naive to suggest that these problems are not
    occurring in other states. Travis Tygart, CEO of the United
    States Anti-Doping Agency, will tell you that the most
    important part of USADA's system is out-of-competition testing.
    When you don't know when you are going to be tested, when you
    know your samples will be tested by an accredited lab and held
    for years, when you know you will be penalized, then you have a
    real deterrent against cheating.
        I am sure many of you wonder why any industry would ask
    Congress to engage in an area that has been the domain of state
    regulators. Well, despite decades of trying to achieve
    uniformity by self-regulation, we have failed. Also, Congress
    and this committee in particular helped save our industry by
    passing the aforementioned Interstate Horseracing Act, and we
    hope you can do so again.
        We strongly believe that our sport needs an independent
    organization to apply uniform rules, stringent out-of-
    competition testing, tough penalties, and effective enforcement
    procedures. These measures will ensure clean competition and
    improve safety for horses and humans alike. This is consistent
    with The Jockey Club's core belief that horses should compete
    only when they are free from the influence of medication.
        We very much look forward to working with you.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Janney follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. The subcommittee thanks you for your testimony
    this morning.
        And, Mr. Hamelback, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank
    you.

                      STATEMENT OF ERIC HAMELBACK

        Mr. Hamelback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Schakowsky, and distinguished members. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify before you today.
        My name, again, is Eric Hamelback. I am the CEO for the
    National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association,
    located in Lexington, Kentucky. We are the largest organization
    representing close to 30,000 owners and trainers of
    Thoroughbred racehorses in the U.S. and Canada.
        I have been involved with horses my entire professional
    life. Before assuming my current position, I did everything
    from mucking stalls to managing one of the largest breeding
    operations in the world--a true horseman.
        I wish to state emphatically that the National HBPA and the
    vast majority of Thoroughbred organizations and two other
    organizations representing racing breeds, the U.S. Trotting
    Association and the American Quarter Horse Association, are all
    on the record in firmly opposing the enactment of H.R. 2651.
        The HBPA believes that owners and trainers who cheat by
    administering drugs with no legitimate therapeutic use in
    racehorses should be severely penalized. Doping is illegal, and
    it is immoral.
        Data maintained by the state racing authorities compiled by
    the Association of Racing Commissioners International shows
    conclusively that doping of racehorses in the U.S. is rare. In
    fact, the horseracing industry spends millions of dollars on
    comprehensive testing each year.
        In 2017, there were over 354,000 biological samples taken
    by regulators in the U.S. Only 169 of those tests were positive
    for drugs that had no business being in the horse. So, to put
    it plainly, 99.9 percent of all tests were negative of any
    doping substance. That is a record that should be the envy of
    every sport that tests for illegal drugs.
        Another stat worth noting is that the states representing
    95 percent of the dollars wagered in the U.S. are under the
    same controlled therapeutic medication list, and 100 percent
    are under the uniform prohibiting performance-enhancing
    medications.
        The HBPA, along with the American Association of Equine
    Practitioners and the North American Association of Racetrack
    Veterinarians, draw a very clear distinction between doping and
    lawful therapeutic medications, such as furosemide, commonly
    called LASIX.
        LASIX is effective in preventing and mitigating bleeding in
    the lungs, a condition that we call exercise-induced pulmonary
    hemorrhaging. It is transparent to the public, and it has been
    safely used for over 40 years. The HBPA supports the use of
    LASIX and other therapeutic medications for the health and
    welfare of our horses.
        The American Veterinary Medical Association, representing
    more than 91,000 veterinarians who have no vested interest in
    horseracing, support the AAEP's policy, which clearly states
    the use of LASIX on race day is the most efficacious way to
    control EIPH. These veterinary experts should not be ignored.
        And yet a minority of voices has called for the ban of
    LASIX on race day. Those who do so equate usage of LASIX to
    doping. That is false. The scientific, clinical evidence
    establishes the facts about LASIX, which include: Nearly all
    racehorses bleed to some varying degree, and they have a grade
    of EIPH. LASIX does not prevent post-race detection in other
    drugs. That is a myth. LASIX is not performance-enhancing. It
    does not make a horse run faster than its God-given ability to
    do so. And, finally, LASIX is a choice. You have the choice, as
    an owner or trainer, to use it.
        Some proclaim that the rest of the world does not use LASIX
    and neither should we. Well, that is misleading at best. LASIX
    is widely used in training in other countries. From a horse and
    welfare standpoint, that makes no sense to me. Rather, it
    should be used on race day, when the stress of competitive
    racing heightens and the risk of harm caused by the internal
    bleeding increases.
        So, in summary, there is no need for the Federal Government
    to reinvent the wheel by establishing a new regulatory
    structure where the state structure is already working well.
    And a new Federal structure would likely take years to gain the
    necessary knowledge and would cost millions of dollars. H.R.
    2651 is not needed. The job we are doing is being done very
    well.
        Thank you, Chairman. And I appreciate the opportunity to be
    here, and I am happy to answer any questions as a horseman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hamelback follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        And, Ms. Block, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF KITTY BLOCK

        Ms. Block. Thank you. On behalf of the Humane Society of
    the United States and its affiliate, the Humane Society
    Legislative Fund, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in
    support of H.R. 2651.
        Thank you, Chairman Bob Latta and Ranking Member Jan
    Schakowsky, for holding this hearing and to Representatives
    Andy Barr and Paul Tonko for introducing this important
    legislation.
        First, I want to make clear our position on horseracing and
    our interest in this legislation. We are not opposing
    horseracing. Our interest is improving the welfare and
    treatment of all animals, including racehorses.
        In 2016, we formed a National Horse Racing Advisory
    Council. Our goal was to facilitate the exchange of information
    between people who have spent a lifetime in this industry and
    those of us who care about equine welfare. This impressive
    council includes industry experts from The Jockey Club,
    racehorse breeders, former state racing commission officials,
    and two hall-of-fame jockeys and is chaired by the former owner
    of Pimlico.
        We believe that everyone who makes a living from this
    industry has an obligation to protect and enhance the welfare
    of horses, who are at the heart and soul of this business.
        Throughout history, horses have played a key role in the
    development of our society. They are majestic creatures who
    have served us in so many ways, from plowing our fields to
    fighting in our wars. And, today, we partner with these equine
    athletes in numerous competitions, races, and recreational
    riding. Horses have often served as a symbol of the American
    spirit. We have a duty to care for them humanely and to not put
    them in harm's way and to provide a safe and comfortable life
    for them once their racing career has ended.
        It is a glaring oversight, therefore, that there is no
    national regulatory body for horseracing. And this creates a
    disparity of racing regulations and uneven enforcement in the
    U.S. I also serve as the Humane Society International
    president, which is the HSUS's global arm, so I am keenly aware
    that the U.S. is lagging behind other nations with racehorsing
    traditions. In particular, we have offices in the U.K. and
    Australia, where the horseracing industry is successful without
    the use of race-day medications.
        The ethical issues in horseracing are closely related to
    concerns raised about doping in a variety of Olympic
    competitions and professional sports. These industries all have
    policies against certain types of drug use, and high-profile
    incidents have left the public concerned about the extent of
    the problem in these sports.
        The racing industry continues to lag behind because too
    many stakeholders want to maintain the status quo. And the use
    of illegal substances is not the only problem. Legal
    therapeutic drugs are also problematic, as they can allow a
    horse to push through pain, intensifying injury, which can lead
    to breakdowns, career-ending injuries, and death for both horse
    and jockey.
        This industry has had decades to clean up its act, but it
    has been unable to do so. This is neither an impulsive
    government intervention nor an unnecessary one. It comes after
    the death of thousands of horses, declining fan interest, and a
    general crisis of confidence in the sport. It is a national
    industry, and it demands consistent standards rather than the
    current patchwork of state racing regulations.
        Additionally, as this subcommittee knows well, Congress has
    for the past decade wrestled with the problem of healthy
    American horses being funneled into the slaughter pipeline,
    including horses coming from the racetrack. Racehorses with
    drug-related injuries are often sent to slaughter once the
    horses are no longer able to run.
        Horses can live well into their 20s and 30s, and their
    racing careers generally span only the first 5 years of life.
    Horses who are healthy when they retire from racing are in a
    far better position to transition to second careers and less
    likely to be sold to killer buyers. If you agree with the 80
    percent of Americans who oppose the slaughter of horses for
    human consumption, this bill will reduce the number of broken-
    down racehorses killed for their meat.
        As an animal protection organization, we have seen
    repeatedly that any industry taking shortcuts on animal welfare
    will see a loss of public support. Undeniably, for a variety of
    reasons, the horseracing industry is in decline. It is critical
    that this industry strive to meet the highest standards of
    animal care. We shouldn't put horses' lives at risk, as there
    is an alternate path.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Block follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        And, Mr. Martin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF ED MARTIN

        Mr. Martin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much
    appreciate the opportunity to be here.
        And I was instructed firmly by the chairman of the Ohio
    State Racing Commission to stand up for the Standardbreds in
    Ohio that race in your state as well as all the horses who race
    in everybody else's states.
        I am here to explain what is done to police the sport of
    horseracing by the states, put it in perspective with other
    sports, address misconceptions some people have, and identify
    where we believe the real need is to protect the welfare of the
    horse.
        There have been a lot of things said so far, and I would
    urge--I can't squeeze them all into 5 minutes, but I have a
    rather lengthy written testimony that addresses almost
    everything that has already been said.
        The ARCI sets standards for thoroughbred, standardbred, and
    quarter horse racing. We represent the state regulators in the
    U.S., the Federal and provincial regulators in Canada, as well
    as the national regulator in several other jurisdictions. Our
    model rules and drug classification systems are respected
    worldwide, and some jurisdictions have adopted portions of the
    model rules by reference.
        First, let me say that the state racing regulators are
    totally uniform in prohibiting the presence of performance-
    enhancing drugs in a horse when it races.
        Secondly, there is total uniformity in the adoption of a
    30-year equine welfare policy to permit a voluntary race-day
    equine welfare treatment known as LASIX.
        Third, with the exception of two states, the drug testing
    labs are internationally accredited. There is also total
    uniformity in the use of progressive penalties and substantial
    uniformity in adoption of testing thresholds for 30 appropriate
    medications deemed normal and appropriate for equine care.
        State racing commissions do more testing in racing than any
    other professional sport. Last year, 354,000-plus biological
    samples were sent to the labs. By comparison, all of the World
    Anti-Doping Agency labs tested 300,000 samples and the U.S.
    Anti-Doping Agency tested 13,000 samples.
        And to compare the programs, you have to look at the
    results. The clear rate in U.S. racing commission testing,
    USADA testing, and WADA testing is comparable. When you look at
    the substances being detected by the WADA labs, which are
    readily available on the internet, you will see that they are
    not catching anything that the state racing commissions don't
    catch or have the ability to catch.
        Does that mean we don't have a challenge? No. We do have a
    challenge. We have the same challenge that every other sport
    has: use of substances that are undetectable or unknown. But
    based upon the numbers, which are factual and maybe
    inconvenient for those advocating this bill, horseracing does
    as good a job or as bad a job as the Olympics or any other
    sport.
        It is a little-known fact that the standards in horseracing
    are stricter than they are under the World Anti-Doping Agency
    because we do not permit athletes to obtain permission to use
    performance-enhancing drugs in competition, as is allowed under
    the therapeutic-use exemption provisions of the WADA code.
        According to the 2016 USADA annual report online, they
    approve about 81 percent of their use exemption requests. And
    athletes are given permission to use hormones, stimulants,
    narcotics, cannabinoids, and a host of other drugs that we
    would never, ever, ever allow to be in a horse when it races.
    Now, consider that there is going to be an expansion of sports
    betting. There are things allowed in human sport that we don't
    allow in horseracing.
        The anti-doping and medication policies we have are
    developed by considerable input from a network of anti-doping
    experts as well as the veterinary community. We are opposed to
    this bill because it is a radical and unnecessary
    federalization of a state responsibility that is exercised
    effectively.
        I would like to conclude by saying this. In most states,
    the regulatory jurisdiction over the horse does not reach young
    horses intended to become racehorses. As the bones of these
    young horses mature, the stage is set for their racing career.
    But there are drugs being used on these horses that the FDA has
    warned veterinarians about their safety, yet they are being
    used and used widely. Our concern is that their use may
    adversely affect bone development in ways that can contribute
    to stress fractures, which we already know are linked to
    catastrophic breakdown.
        This is the unregulated aspect of the sport, and we believe
    it needs to be addressed if we are serious about protecting our
    horses. This is controversial because it starts a discussion on
    regulating a part of the industry that currently has no
    regulatory oversight.
        We ask that this subcommittee clearly put an end to the
    debate on H.R. 2651. Only then can the industry, its
    regulators, interested public organizations, and interested
    lawmakers get on the same page on how to address ways to
    protect our horses. There are things the Federal Government can
    do to help; this proposal is not one of them.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]

        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [The attachments to Mr. Martin's statement can be found at:
    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20180622/108463/HHRG-
    115-IF17-Wstate-MartinE-20180622.pdf.]
        Mr. Latta. I thank the gentleman for your testimony.
        And, at this time, Mr. Fravel, you are recognized for 5
    minutes for your statement. Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF CRAIG FRAVEL

        Mr. Fravel. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and
    members of the committee, it is a great privilege to have the
    opportunity to address you today and to advocate for the
    passage of the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017.
        My name is Craig Fravel, and I am the president and chief
    executive officer of Breeders' Cup Limited. Our mission at
    Breeders' Cup is to promote the racing and sale of Thoroughbred
    horses through the conduct of the Breeders' Cup world
    championships--in my view, the preeminent international
    championships in all of Thoroughbred racing.
        I wish to begin my comments by emphasizing that I am not
    here to tear down this great sport. You will hear from others
    that we have made great strides in medication reform and
    enforcement over the last 10 years, and I do not debate that.
        My comments today, however, are about the problems we still
    face with the day-to-day conduct of racing and the confidence
    of the wagering and nonwagering public in our product and about
    conducting the sport under common rules administered
    consistently and fairly for all.
        When racing was reintroduced in the 1930s and 1940s, it was
    a highly local sport, governed by state regulatory authorities
    in those states that chose to permit parimutuel wagering. There
    was no wagering across state lines, at least not legally. And,
    for the most part, horses stayed put in the regions or states
    they called home, with some shipment to winter tracks in
    Florida or California or even to Bowie, near here, in my home
    State of Maryland. While horses did travel to participate in
    the Triple Crown races, for the most part it was a local game
    understandably played under local rules.
        Today, by contrast, wagering is primarily a simulcasting
    effort. And since the mid-1990s, an increasing share of our
    handle is placed online through authorized and highly regulated
    advance-deposit wagering companies. It is now commonplace for
    horses to ship from state to state, from California to New York
    and vice versa, or from overseas. This week, for example, there
    are U.S.-based horses running at the Royal Ascot meeting on the
    grounds of Windsor Castle, as guests of Her Majesty, Queen
    Elizabeth II. And last year at the Breeders' Cup in Del Mar,
    California, there were 38 international runners from Ireland,
    the U.K., France, and South America.
        It is a modern sport now that is global in scope and that
    faces the challenges associated with all sports, whether human
    or equine. The challenges are modern, particularly in the world
    of medication, both legal and illegal. Again, there has been
    progress, but, for the most part, we remain a locally governed
    sport with different regulatory and enforcement capabilities in
    each state.
        Yet we all need to be aware of the potential abuse of
    designer drugs, synthetic steroids, and similar agents and the
    possibilities ahead for manipulation of the equine genome to
    create or alter physical traits of our competitors.
        These modern challenges require concentrated, efficient,
    and sophisticated national programs for investigating
    regulatory matters, researching threats, testing, and
    prosecution. An international sport deserves the most advanced
    form of regulatory mechanism, not one based on 38 different
    state agencies with varying levels of funding, expertise, and
    experience.
        As I have said many times, if we were starting from
    scratch, knowing what we know now, would we have created a
    national organization such as the one contemplated by the
    Horseracing Integrity Act, or would we have 38 different
    rulemaking and enforcement bodies? I think it is obvious that
    we would choose the former and not the latter.
        The current process for national rulemaking remains
    unusually cumbersome. Let me give one example. And while it
    made sound like I am picking on my friends in California, I
    don't mean to single them out.
        California is one of the most capably regulated states.
    Yet, when it came time to adopt the third-party LASIX
    administration leg of the RCI/RMTC National Uniform Medication
    Program, the regulation took almost 4 years to adopt.
    Unfortunately, the Breeders' Cup had to adopt house rules to
    effectuate this important reform when running in California.
        From start to finish, the time a model rule is adopted, the
    implementation process across 38 states can take years. That is
    not to say that rulemaking should be fast-tracked all the time,
    nor should it be arbitrary. It should, however, allow for
    quicker implementation across state lines, as contemplated by
    the Horseracing Integrity Act.
        Before I became a racing executive, I spent the first part
    of my career as a securities lawyer, beginning my practice here
    in Washington, D.C. Having practiced law in that arena, I am a
    big believer in the power of consumer confidence in a
    product,and the fact that the Securities and Exchange
    Commission has primary regulatory authority over the securities
    industry engenders consumer confidence in financial reporting,
    fair trading, and efficient markets. While there of course have
    been failings, on the whole, the public has confidence in the
    markets.
        And I believe a commonsense approach to regulation in our
    thoroughbred business will enhance consumer confidence and
    bring about extraordinary gains economically as we present our
    great sport in the best light possible--the sort of light that
    deserves to be shone on such a great game.
        Mark Twain just once said that it is a difference of
    opinion that makes horseracing. It is my sincere hope that the
    differences of opinion we argue about in the future are about
    who has the best horse, not about how our sport is regulated
    and conducted.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Fravel follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. And thank you very much for your testimony
    today.
        And that will conclude our testimony from our witnesses,
    and we will now move on to our questions and answers from our
    members to our witnesses.
        And, at this time, I am going to begin with recognizing the
    gentleman from Illinois, the vice chair of the subcommittee,
    for 5 minutes of opening questions.
        Mr. Kinzinger. I thank the chairman, and I thank you all
    for being here. And the sponsors of this legislation, thank you
    for your hard work and interest.
        It has actually been pretty interesting; there has been a
    lot of input on this issue since this hearing was announced,
    and we appreciate that. These are very important things that we
    are dealing with here, and I look forward to continuing to
    wrestle with these issues.
        Mr. Janney, some breeders use osteoporosis medication on
    young horses to increase bone density in those with signs of
    bone disease. And reports indicate that some breeders use them
    without good cause and in very young horses, sometimes to
    improve the horse's x-ray images and other test results to make
    the horse more marketable to buyers.
        So my question is: Are racehorses regulated and monitored
    from birth or only once they enter racing? And, further, if
    they are only regulated during racing, doesn't that mean that
    the breeders are actually the ones being allowed to operate
    without an outside authority ensuring the safety of the horses?
        Mr. Janney. I think that there is certainly an element of
    truth to what you are saying. I believe the answer would be
    that the real regulation of horses comes when they make their
    first appearance at the racetrack.
        And you do have a lot of sales that require horses to
    present themselves in the very best way that the buyers may
    like or to work a certain distance of ground at a later date so
    that they are attractive to buyers. And I think that is an area
    that does need to be looked at. Mr. Martin has said that is
    important; I think it is important too. We need a level playing
    field.
        I don't think horses should be asked to do at a young age
    what they may not be capable of doing. The fact of the matter
    is, when a horse works fast as a juvenile, it attracts buyers.
    And so there is this push to get a horse to work very fast at a
    time in their lives when it may not be appropriate. So I have
    no problem with addressing that issue.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        Ms. Block, my understanding is that racehorses experience
    exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging, which, in layman's
    terms, mean horses can bleed from their noses into their lungs
    during a race. To mitigate the severity of the bleeding, LASIX
    is administered to horses 4 hours before the race.
        I have heard from veterinarian groups that staunchly
    believe LASIX is necessary and its use is in the best interest
    of racehorses, especially for their health and welfare. So I
    have two questions for you on this point.
        First, does scientific research support the use of LASIX to
    protect racehorses from EIPH? And please provide a ``yes'' or
    ``no'' on that.
        Ms. Block. I am not a veterinarian, so I would defer to my
    colleagues on that first point. But, please, your second point?
        Mr. Kinzinger. Understanding that the Humane Society's
    mission is to advocate for laws and to protect animals, how can
    you support a bill that bans LASIX on race day, a medication we
    just agreed protects horses--or, from what I have heard, agreed
    protects horses--when the American Association of Equine
    Practitioners, the North American Association of Racetrack
    Veterinarians, and the American Veterinary Medical Association
    all oppose the bill before us?
        Ms. Block. Thank you.
        First of all, we have the Humane Society Veterinary Medical
    Association, and we have close to 10,000 members who support
    this bill and recognize the problems with race-day medications
    in this industry. And so we absolutely feel that this is
    important, this legislation is key. It goes well beyond LASIX.
    It addresses a whole host of issues and problems.
        And as for on race day, a horse out there, before the race
    starts, as people are assembling, with a needle to the horse's
    neck is probably not the best thing everyone wants to see. It
    is not a perception that should be projected. And these horses
    should be able to run clean and safe, as many human athletes do
    in many sports.
        Mr. Kinzinger. I appreciate that. And I think, yes, nobody
    wants to see that, but if it is a medication that protects
    horses, then I think in some cases optics maybe should take a
    second place to actually the protection of the horses.
        Mr. Foreman, the horseracing industry is a state-regulated,
    state-sanctioned industry. And I am a big proponent of states'
    rights, but I also know there can be a need for Federal
    uniformity at times.
        My understanding is that your organization has collaborated
    with others to promote the adoption of national uniform
    medication programs to provide uniformity based on four
    pillars.
        How long have you been trying to get this program adopted?
    And where are you finding resistance, and why?
        Mr. Foreman. Thank you, Congressman. The National Uniform
    Medication Program, and I think the title probably is being
    used against the industry by those who seem to think that we
    don't have uniformity, is the product of many hours and years
    of work by the industry to determine from our existing rule
    book and our existing rules what can we do better to improve
    the regulation of the sport and the safety and welfare of the
    horse.
        And there were initially four areas that were identified.
    One was that there is even a misunderstanding, I think,
    probably among the committee as to what substances are
    administered to a horse. Horses are treated on a daily basis
    with therapeutic medications in their best interest for injury
    or illness.
        There are substances that don't belong in a horse on a race
    day under any circumstances, and the public doesn't understand
    the difference between the two, and that is something that the
    industry has wrestled with. For example----
        Mr. Kinzinger. I hate to do this. I am going to have to--
    just because we are going over in time and we have a lot of
    questions. That was my fault for only asking with 20 seconds
    left.
        Mr. Foreman. My fault for talking too long.
        Mr. Kinzinger. No, that is OK.
        Mr. Foreman. But there are four areas: controlled
    therapeutic medication, third-party administration of LASIX to
    get the vets out of the stalls on race day, a multiple-
    medication violation penalty system on top of the existing very
    well done disciplinary system, and the accreditation of our
    laboratories.
        The program started in the midatlantic, which is the
    largest concentration of racing in the United States, on
    January 1, 2014. And I have included maps and information in
    our packet that 97 percent of racing jurisdictions have adopted
    the controlled therapeutic medication list. Ninety-six percent
    of our laboratories are accredited. There is only one lab right
    now that is not accredited.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Sir, I am sorry, I am going to have to
    reclaim my time on that. I am sure somebody else may have
    questions on it.
        Mr. Latta. And as always, we will make sure that questions
    that are asked by the committee will be submitted to the
    witnesses and will have the normal 10 days to submit and
    respond to them.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. And I will just ask unanimous
    consent, I have three things I want to enter into the record
    and also two letters from my constituents on both expressing
    opposition to this legislation.
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. At this time, the chair will recognize the
    gentleman from New York for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    ability to jump ahead in the process here because of the
    conflicts we have. I, again, thank you and the ranking member
    for the hearing.
        Let me cite Chris McCarron, our wonderful jockey in the
    audience, and it is good to have you here today. Thank you for
    what you brought to the arena, your talent, your ability, your
    passion for the sport. Thank you for expressing your concerns
    about this issue and being supportive of a concept that can
    bring great strength to the industry, seated next to Terry
    Finley, who was so active with my home state's horsemen's
    association. Great to have everyone here.
        Mr. Fravel, in your testimony, you make it clear that
    horseracing is not only an interstate sport but an
    international one. More than 50 percent of horses cross state
    lanes to race, and 90 percent of the handle comes from
    interstate betting.
        With that in mind, can you explain why it would benefit the
    sport if a horse running in Texas ran under the same rules as a
    horse running in, for example, New York?
        Mr. Fravel. Well, I think if one of our challenges is
    making sure that consuming public understands our sports
    better, it is important that we have one set of rules. I mean,
    baseball teams, other than the designated hitter rule, don't
    play under different rules when they travel from one league to
    another, one city to another. And, we have had that problem in
    racing for many, many years. And in the old days, it was fine.
    Horses stayed where they were. The public wagered on site. But
    now, we travel around the world, and we need a modern system to
    enforce our regulations and to create them.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Janney, can you describe where the United States
    stands in terms of medication rules in comparison with the rest
    of the world? In what ways does this divergence impact the
    domestic industry?
        Mr. Janney. Well, we have talked a lot about NUMP, and it
    really has, I think, five elements, and I think Mr. Foreman
    would agree with that, because the last one is out-of-
    competition testing. So there is some agreement among the
    states as to which substances are on the list, though not as
    complete as has been suggested.
        With third-party LASIX, we are getting there slowly. There
    are places that don't adhere to that rule. With penalties, we
    are getting there to some extent, not as fast as any of us
    would like and maybe not in my lifetime.
        Labs are interesting, because if you don't have good labs,
    you don't really have anything. I am a board member of the New
    York Racing Association. We operate Saratoga, Belmont, and
    Aqueduct. Currently, we have requested of the Governor of New
    York for money in the State budget, which I believe he is going
    to do, for a new lab in New York, which will be up to
    international standards. And that is the most important thing I
    will say, is the lab in New York is in no way up to
    international standards.
        The positives called in New York are one of the lowest in
    the country. Does that mean that people in New York are more
    law-abiding? I don't know. But it is alarmingly lower than any
    other state, particularly for a major racing state. So the
    request is in. There will be study money, I think, for a new
    lab in New York.
        And the CEO of New York Racing has spent a great deal of
    time going around to Hong Kong, to the French lab, to others,
    to the Olympic labs that USADA uses, because there isn't
    anything in this country that meets that standard, the most
    important of which is double-blind testing.
        Mr. Tonko. Mr. Janney, in your opinion, does the
    Horseracing Integrity Act add an additional layer of
    bureaucracy or does it coordinate States into a single rule
    book with penalties?
        Mr. Janney. Well, everybody here has said we need to have
    uniformity. Well, this is the quickest way. This will get
    there, again, in my lifetime. The compact won't. The compact
    was discussed 10 or 15 years ago. One state said yes--that was
    Kentucky--and nobody else.
        You have on your record, the Stronach organization that is
    racing in Florida, California, and Maryland, saying they want
    the horseracing act. You have the New York Authority saying we
    want the horseracing act. So my view on a compact and other
    ways, whether it is NUMP, is that it is more designed to waste
    time. We are not going to get where we need to be, and this act
    does that, and that is why I am so in favor of it.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Mr. Fravel, there have been concerns expressed about the
    intent of Horseracing Integrity Act to replace state racing
    commissions. What do you envision the relationship between the
    state racing commissions and the new anti-doping agency as
    being?
        Mr. Fravel. The Act, as currently drafted, allows the new
    horseracing entity to delegate authority to states that as long
    as they are meeting certain standards and quality assurance. So
    I think that the possibility is that these two things will
    exist greatly in cooperation with one another, not replace, but
    simply streamline and make much more efficient the rulemaking
    and enforcement process, which is something that we all tend to
    agree on. So I am not sure I understand the vehemence with
    which some people oppose this if we all are trying to achieve
    the same thing.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
        And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time.
        And at this time, the chair will recognize the gentlelady
    from California for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Walters. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Foreman, in your testimony, you state that H.R. 2651 is
    not the best interest of the racing industry. Why do you
    believe that to be the case?
        Mr. Foreman. I believe it is the case because the existing
    framework with which we work under works well. We are all
    operating under one rule book throughout the country. Our
    industry is regulated by state regulators. The regulation of
    our sport is very similar.
        There is, in my view, no reason to superimpose on what is a
    system that is working very well, a group of people who know
    nothing about the business. I don't think it is realistic that
    the industry is going to roll over and allow others who are
    outside the industry to essentially make the rules for them.
        In the proposal in the legislation actually is doing what
    we are doing now. It is just who is going to be in charge and
    who is going to make those decisions, and I believe that that
    is why states have legalized racing. And no different than any
    other--the lotteries, regulated by the states; sports gaming
    will be regulated by the states; casino gaming regulated by the
    states. Gambling is not for the Federal Government. Horseracing
    is not for the Federal Government.
        If I could just make one correction to a statement that was
    made about our laboratory system, because I think it is
    important. Our labs are all internationally accredited, except
    for one. To say that a laboratory in New York does not meet
    international standards is incorrect. They all must meet
    accreditation under ISO 17025.
        What we have done in the industry is created a code that is
    stricter than the WADA code, and we require our laboratories to
    meet that standard, in addition to international standards. And
    no other laboratories in the world are required to meet our
    standards. We are better than the other laboratories. The
    laboratory in New York is accredited both to international
    standards and to what we call the RMTC Code of Standards.
        Mrs. Walters. Thank you.
        Mr. Fravel, is LASIX used at the Breeders' Cup?
        Mr. Fravel. We tried to eliminate the use of LASIX for the
    Breeders' Cup championships, and because of the provisions of
    the Interstate Horseracing Act we were prevented from doing so.
    We would certainly prefer to run our races under international
    rules that ban the use of LASIX. And I think if you were
    watching your television on NBC this week, you would see
    hundreds of horses at the Royal Ascot meeting without LASIX
    under no duress whatsoever.
        Mrs. Walters. In your capacity as the CEO of the Breeders'
    Cup, have you ever proposed a ban on LASIX?
        Mr. Fravel. Yes. We tried to implement that, and we did
    have 2-year-olds racing without LASIX in 1 year, but we were
    forced to back away from that.
        Mrs. Walters. So how was that received by the industry?
        Mr. Fravel. Many of our members were quite concerned that
    we were not able to enforce our rules and many members of the
    training committee were happy that we were not able to enforce
    those rules.
        Mrs. Walters. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Hamelback, I have several questions for you on the
    use of LASIX. Is the use of LASIX currently mandated?
        Mr. Hamelback. I apologize. The use of LASIX is not
    mandated for any athlete.
        Mrs. Walters. Is the use of LASIX uniform at races, meaning
    are all horses that race administered the medication? Are all
    horses that race administered the medication?
        Mr. Hamelback. I believe the answer is all horses are not
    administered LASIX. If it is administered LASIX, it is publicly
    posted into the program and--but if a choice of an owner and
    their professional with the veterinary acknowledgment does not
    choose to utilize LASIX on their horse, they do not do so.
        Mrs. Walters. OK. How is the veterinarian involved in the
    process?
        Mr. Hamelback. In my opinion, the decision to place your
    horse on the LASIX list, as we would call it, in order to make
    the decision to utilize that therapeutic medication, it is a
    joint decision made by the owner, the veterinarian, and
    ultimately the trainer, or some may say the coach. What would
    happen and should happen, it should be directed under the
    veterinary care, making sure that the health and welfare of the
    individual is most taken care of.
        Mrs. Walters. OK. So if every horse is being administered
    LASIX, does any horse gain a competitive advantage?
        Mr. Hamelback. Not in my opinion. Again, it is very well
    said that LASIX can help in EIPH systems. So by that, if it
    prevents EIPH from occurring, then most certainly it is going
    to allow the horse to perform at its natural talent. If
    bleeding does occur beneath the alveoli of the lungs, then,
    yes, that would inhibit. So in my opinion, it would inhibit the
    horse from actually gaining his advantage of just natural
    talent.
        Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you. I am out of time. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, the
    ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Janney, do you believe that we would see fewer
    catastrophic injuries, horse deaths, injuries to jockeys, if we
    banned the administration of drugs during the 24-hour period
    before race day?
        Mr. Janney. Well, I think it would improve the situation.
    Our industry has a very difficult perception problem,
    particularly with LASIX. Now, LASIX, in my view, probably
    doesn't prevent people from figuring out if there are other
    drugs that shouldn't be there. So that is not the issue. The
    issue is sticking a needle in a horse's neck 4 hours before the
    race. They lose more than 20 pounds in a sport which basically
    says weight is important.
        Chris McCarron rode at--what did you ride at? Probably 112,
    113 pounds and with weights. It was a very slight tolerance. So
    the horse loses weight.
        The other thing is, we have a terrible problem with, if you
    look at any betting show, and if I don't run horses on LASIX if
    they are 2-year-olds. I do when they become 3 because I feel
    like I have to compete. I would prefer not to.
        But I will guarantee you that when one of my horses steps
    on the track, that whoever is doing the analysis for the
    betting public will say, you ought to bet on the Janney horse
    because that horse is getting LASIX for the first time.
        And I will follow that up by saying, the Pegasus Cup last
    year, Frank Stronach, who doesn't believe in LASIX, that was a
    $15 million race. Bob Baffert had a horse in there called West
    Coast that was our champion 3-year-old last year. He was going
    to Dubai after that and run without LASIX. But he was offered a
    5-pound weight allowance, so in other words, he would carry 5
    pounds less if he didn't administer LASIX before the Pegasus.
    And Bob Baffert chose to administer LASIX. So I think at least
    Bob Baffert is saying it is a performance-enhancing drug. So
    that would be my answer.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Ms. Block, I understand that most
    racing countries, as you have mentioned--I didn't know that The
    Humane Society actually did exist in the U.K. and Australia--
    but also Japan banned certain drugs on race day, but the United
    States permits the use of race-day drugs.
        So what effect does that have on the health of horses that
    race in the United States compared to their counterparts that
    race in other countries where race-day drugs are banned?
        Ms. Block. Thank you. Yes, Humane Society International,
    which is the global affiliate of HSUS, we are actually in 14
    countries and incorporate in 14 countries and work in about 20
    others. So the health of these animals in these other countries
    where there are racing traditions, they are doing just fine.
    There is not any indication that they are ailing or suffering
    because they are not using race-day medications. And so it is a
    standard by which we think that the U.S. should also be able to
    meet.
        And as it has been mentioned, these horses do travel
    internationally. When they are over there in the other
    countries, they are racing just fine. So in an effort to bring
    the U.S. up to this global standard, I think it is necessary to
    pass this legislation.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        OK. Mr. Fravel and Mr. Janney, most countries with
    longstanding horse traditions ban LASIX on race day. Actually,
    Mr. Janney, I think I heard from you on LASIX on race day.
        So let me ask you, for your wife, Mr. Fravel, what do they
    use instead of LASIX to treat or prevent bleeding?
        Mr. Fravel. Well, most international jurisdictions do not
    permit any supplemental treatment for EIPH. For example, Hong
    Kong, probably the most successful racing in the world, the
    highest handle anywhere in the world, has the most rigid and
    well-regulated medication protocols in the world. And horses
    there, they manage to fill races with a population of 1,250
    horses.
        So I think the concern that the sky will fall if we
    prohibited the use of LASIX is unfounded. It happens everywhere
    in the world on a daily basis and the horses get around just
    fine, if not even better than they do here.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And I also appreciate your adding that it
    certainly hasn't hurt the industry either, all those that are
    involved.
        Mr. Fravel. Again, probably the three most successful
    racing jurisdictions in the world--Australia, Japan, Hong
    Kong--all run under regimes that do not permit any
    administration of race-day medication, including LASIX.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Janney, from your testimony, I believe that you
    would like to see uniformity in the medication standards that
    are given to racehorses. Perhaps shouldn't Congress rely on the
    states to adopt the model rules that have already been
    developed?
        Mr. Janney. I am not a young man. I know I look that way,
    but I am 69 years old, and it is my----
        Mr. Lance. You do indeed look young.
        Mr. Janney [continuing]. It is my considered opinion that I
    would never be around to see that day. It will not happen. I
    have worked for the last 20 years being in rooms with other
    people to try to figure all this out. And the status quo for a
    lot of people is exactly what they want. And what I am here to
    do is try to provide the things that are going to be necessary
    for this industry so that my children can enjoy it.
        Now, just before I close, I think Mr. Foreman got it
    backwards on the labs. He said that all but one lab is IFHA
    accredited. That is not right. There is only one lab in the
    United States that is, so it is the exact reverse of what he
    said, and that is the lab at Davis in California.
        Mr. Lance. I will get to you, Mr. Foreman.
        How many states have adopted the model rules so far, sir?
        Mr. Janney. Nobody has adopted all of the rules. The rules
    are five and--they are five elements to NUMP. When I was in
    school, I didn't get a lot of credit for just answering one
    question. So what you heard this morning is that people have
    somewhat agreed on what the list should include of prohibited
    substances. But then it falls off very rapidly, and it
    particularly falls off without a competition testing, which Mr.
    Foreman has identified as one of the most important elements.
    And I can assure you that Lance Armstrong never failed a post-
    race test or a pre-race test. He only failed out-of-competition
    testing when people understood what he was taking.
        And so in California, 2 days ago, or yesterday, I think,
    the proposal that was ratified by the Association of Racing
    Commissioners, which is the foundation of NUMP, their rule on
    out-of-competition testing came before the California Horse
    Racing Board. It did not do well. Their equine medical
    director, Rick Arthur, said a number of things. I will quote
    some of them and----
        Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Janney. In fairness, we ought to
    have Mr. Foreman be able to respond.
        Mr. Foreman. Thank you, Congressman. We have heard
    something today that actually is somewhat new to us, and that
    is IFHA laboratory accreditation. That is something that the
    international labs have been working to accomplish for some
    time because we have been so successful in this country with
    the creation of our RMTC code of standards.
        There are no international code of standards, and the
    international laboratories have been trying to organize a
    program very similar to what we do in the United States. So I
    stand by my statement that all but one of our laboratories is
    accredited to ISO 17025, which is the international laboratory
    standard.
        With respect to what is referred to as the NUMP program
    that no one has adopted, this program started in the
    midatlantic. The midatlantic is the largest concentration of
    racing on a daily basis in the United States. New Jersey is a
    participant.
        Mr. Lance. Indeed, yes.
        Mr. Foreman. This program started in the midatlantic. All
    of the states in the midatlantic have adopted all five prongs
    of the Uniform Medication Program and they are in effect. And
    the program is now sweeping through the country, and you can
    see from our maps how it is being adopted throughout the----
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Mr. Martin, you wish to comment, I believe?
        Mr. Martin. Thank you, Congressman. We hear a lot about
    uniformity. A lot has been said about a patchwork of 38
    different states, each with their own rule book. Well, each
    state does have its own rule book, but those rule books are
    substantially similar and they are based upon the model rules.
    The State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Racing Commission, with
    regards to medication policy, has adopted the model rules by
    reference.
        The constituencies that are most concerned about any minor
    inconsistencies from state to state are the horsemen, and the
    horsemen are universally opposed to a radical restructuring of
    the current system.
        If the Congress is interested in having one set of
    standards, perhaps the easiest thing to do--and I can't speak
    for everybody else at this table--would be to adopt the ARCI
    model rules by reference, because it has been years and years
    and years of well thought out research and interaction between
    our veterinary community that has gone into the creation of
    those rules.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much. Thank you very much,
    Chairman Latta, for having this hearing, and also Ranking
    Member Schakowsky.
        Ms. Block, what kind of understanding do you have about
    what LASIX does to a horse's lungs? Is there any relevance or
    connection between LASIX and the lungs of a horse?
        Ms. Block. I do have some basic understanding, but as I
    said, I am not well versed in this area, so I would defer to my
    colleague on this.
        Mr. Cardenas. Anybody want to state for the record what the
    connection is between a horse's lungs and the use of LASIX?
        Yes, Mr. Janney.
        Mr. Janney. There is certainly a percentage of horses that
    do bleed to the extent that it harms their performance.
        Mr. Cardenas. Excuse me. Thank you for pointing that out.
    Bleed to the extent that it harms their performance.
        Mr. Janney. Yes. There are small capillaries in their
    lungs, and as the air rushes in and out, there may be some
    degree of bleeding.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK.
        Mr. Janney. We never knew about that until the flexible
    stethoscope was invented.
        Mr. Cardenas. So we know now?
        Mr. Janney. We do know now.
        Mr. Cardenas. Now, when a horse is administered LASIX, is
    it 1 percent chance that their lungs are going to bleed at
    least to a small degree? A 2 percent, a 10 percent, a 90
    percent chance? What is the chances that bleeding of the lungs
    will occur when a horse has been administered LASIX? And
    understand, I am talking about a horse that is going to be
    running, not a horse that is sitting in the stall.
        Mr. Janney. There are plenty of horses that are
    administered LASIX and they do bleed. The question is whether
    they bleed to the extent that it inhibits their performance.
    There is a scale of one to five, and I think the thought is
    that if a horse bleeds on a one or two scale, it probably
    doesn't make too much difference.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, are there any veterinarians on the panel?
        Nobody on the panel is a veterinarian? That is unfortunate,
    because I think we missed an opportunity. We are talking about
    a drug. We are talking about horses. For example, if a jockey
    is practicing or is going on the track on race day, and that
    jockey doesn't feel good, that jockey can say, hey, I don't
    feel good, and maybe they can get things in order by the time
    the race happens or during practice or get that person some
    help to make sure they are OK.
        But the horses, their only way of communicating that their
    lungs are bleeding is, it appears to me, when you see the blood
    coming out of their nose when you are in real practice of LASIX
    administered to horses.
        Have any horses donated their lungs to science?
        Mr. Hamelback. May I address----
        Mr. Cardenas. The reason why I ask that question is because
    I used to love to play football when I was a kid just way too
    much with or without a helmet. And look what happened to me: I
    am a Member of Congress. What does it take to run for office in
    this country these days? I would venture to say I was affected
    to a certain degree, but then I have the ability to make
    choices. I have the ability to raise my hand and say, hey, I
    need help or something is wrong or what have you.
        And one of the things that concerns me about LASIX and
    horses is, I can understand that maybe 10 years ago, 20 years
    ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago when people were racing horses
    and then all of a sudden sometime during that timeframe LASIX
    got involved, and people said, hey, this is something that
    helps or this is something that is good or this is something
    that maybe we should be using. But now, we have entire
    countries who are saying, you know what, LASIX, no, not a good
    idea. Now that we have science, not a good idea.
        And what I would venture to believe--unfortunately on this
    panel we don't have one--is that on balance, veterinarians who
    deal with horses, veterinarians who have actually dealt with
    animals, horses that have been administered LASIX or they have
    had to come out and go look at them or what have you and then
    render their opinion about the health and safety of that horse,
    I would venture to believe that, on balance, those
    veterinarians are probably shaking their head going, you know
    what, human beings, LASIX with horses, stop it.
        And the reason why I have joined this bill is because,
    unlike football players, horses, their voice is up to us human
    beings as to whether or not we are going to listen, we are
    going to learn, and we are just going to do the right thing.
    And LASIX is something that I think that us as intelligent
    human beings know today that LASIX is something that is
    probably not good for the horses.
        With that, I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield the
    balance of my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
        And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Thanks for holding this hearing as well.
        My first question is for Mr. Hamelback. My understanding is
    that LASIX is administered 4 hours before the race, is that
    correct, and why? Can you please explain why LASIX is
    administered on race day as opposed to the prior day?
        Mr. Hamelback. Yes, that is correct, Congressman, that the
    optimum time stated through research to be most efficacious for
    treating EIPH or preventing EIPH is between 3 to 4 hours. That
    is also the timeframe that studies done at the University of
    Kentucky Gluck Center prove that there is no further dilution
    within the blood; therefore, the masking that many people talk
    about is irrelevant because it is not proved to be so if it is
    administered at that timeframe.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Let me ask another question, and I will
    probably get different answers and maybe you answer this
    question. So whoever wants to answer this, please.
        Will a bettor be more inclined to bet on a horse--because I
    have been away from it for a long time--if that bettor knows
    that this horse is given LASIX? And, I need to know that. Well,
    anyway, can you answer that question? What is your opinion?
        Mr. Hamelback. I would like to address just one thing going
    forward.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, please.
        Mr. Hamelback. I want to make sure that, for the record,
    the veterinary groups, unfortunately they were not selected
    here, they have publicly opposed this bill. So I would like to
    make sure that that is on record because we weren't allowed to
    address that.
        If a wagering individual is aware, which, again, LASIX is
    transparent, it is publicly put into the program----
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. In Florida, I know that that is the
    case. So the wager would know.
        Mr. Hamelback. Correct.
        Mr. Bilirakis. And it is also announced, I think, in the
    public address system as well----
        Mr. Hamelback. Depending on if there is a correction.
        Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. The horse is on LASIX. Yes.
        Mr. Martin. Congressman, LASIX use is almost ubiquitous.
    And I say to people, if every horse in that race is running on
    LASIX, could you tell me which one has the advantage, and they
    can't.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. They can't tell you.
        What is the alternative? Mr. Foreman, prior to the use of
    LASIX, how were horses treated to address exercise-induced
    pulmonary hemorrhaging?
        Mr. Foreman. Well, there were a number of therapies and a
    number of concoctions that were being used prior to the
    legalization of LASIX, and that is one of the reasons why the
    industry welcomed the advent of a new medication that was safe
    and effective and leveled the playing field.
        But the single biggest concern about eliminating LASIX and
    what is done internationally as well as in this country, if
    LASIX is not permitted, you withdraw water from the horse for
    at least 24 hours prior to competition, and you withdraw food.
    That is how it is done. Don't think for a second that horses
    don't bleed in Europe. They may not be able to use LASIX on
    race day, but the most effective therapy for a horse that
    bleeds is to withdraw water 24 hours prior to competition.
        Now is that humane? Is that in the best interest of the
    horse? Would you rather see horses who are raced dehydrated
    because they are less likely to bleed and see other
    concoctions? They used to use adjunct bleeder medications that
    we have banned, carbazochrome, Kentucky Red, other concoctions
    that they would give to a horse that anecdotally horsemen
    believed would affect whether or not the horse bleeds or not.
        But to think that we would go back to a situation where we
    were the Wild West before LASIX was permitted and that we were
    allowed to starve or to withdraw water from our horses or to do
    other things, to me is irresponsible. And we would be shirking
    our responsibilities to our primary responsibility, and that is
    the health and welfare of the horse, if we were to withdraw a
    horse that the veterinary community has now elevated to a
    disease, the EIPH factor. We have a safe, effective medication
    that does not affect the performance of the horse. Why would
    you deprive a horse of that?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Anyone else want to comment? That is the
    bottom line. We care about the horse, the health and welfare of
    the horse.
        Mr. Janney. Well, I would like to, if I could. We have
    heard a lot about the veterinary community, and they are in a
    very difficult position. If you or I go to see our doctor and
    he looks at us and says, well, after 45 minutes, more exercise,
    less eating. And we leave. We expect to get a bill.
        That is not the way it works at the racetrack. If a vet
    comes into my stable, and my trainer says, go look at the horse
    down in stall one. He is a little sore. Go look at the one down
    on three. I think there is a problem with an ankle, whatever.
    He doesn't get paid unless he prescribes something, some
    medication.
        I have never paid a bill for a consultation. And so you are
    really conflicted because as a veterinarian, as a racetrack
    vet, you are not going to feed your family giving
    consultations. And the Thoroughbred Safety Committee, and Chris
    McCarron is on that committee, recommended 2 or 3 years ago,
    one of our principle recommendations was go to a system like a
    human doctor where somebody gets paid to analyze and maybe not
    prescribe.
        LASIX is a very lucrative business. The vets basically are
    selling the compounds that they are putting into a horse. If
    your horse may have an ulcer problem and you are getting
    GastroGard for it, the vet has bought the GastroGard. He
    resells it. And that is just a fact of life at the racetrack,
    and it is not the way we ought to do business.
        Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. I'm sorry. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Hamelback. Sir, I have worked for veterinarians for
    much of my professional career, and I find it offensive that
    Mr. Janney addressed the veterinarians in that way.
        Mr. Latta. The chair at this time recognizes the gentleman
    from Texas for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our
    witnesses for being here today.
        Ms. Block, do you know how the death rates for horses in
    the U.S. compare with death rates in other countries?
        Ms. Block. I am sorry. Could you repeat that? Could you
    repeat that question?
        Mr. Green. The death rates for horses in the United States
    as compared to other countries.
        Ms. Block. I don't have the statistics on that, and I can
    certainly compile that for you and present it later.
        Mr. Green. OK. If you could, get it back to us.
        For the panel, all the panel, are horses in the United
    States more prone to bleeding during races than racehorses in
    other countries? And if so, why would you believe that? Why
    would that be happening?
        Mr. Hamelback. Sir, there was a study done in 2009 in South
    Africa. Over 167 horses were tested and scoped. Over 80 percent
    of those bled to some degree, so that is why we believe it is
    necessary.
        Mr. Janney. I will maybe add a little bit to that. A lot of
    the other countries have different training centers. We tend to
    house our horses at the racetrack. They tend to be in more
    urban environments. Air quality may not be as good. We have a
    definite predisposition for speed in a race, and those kinds of
    elements do affect what is going on, and it probably makes our
    bleeding a bigger problem than it might be in other
    jurisdictions.
        But the fact of the matter is, even having said that, it is
    really 10 percent of the population that we are talking about.
    Ninety percent of the horses don't need LASIX, but they get it
    anyway, and then they get a bottle of electrolytes after they
    race to try and rehydrate them. So it is a problem.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Martin, is pulmonary bleeding painful for
    the horses? Although none of us are horses, I guess we don't
    know.
        Mr. Martin. I didn't know I looked like a horse,
    Congressman.
        I can't answer that question. The only thing I can say is
    what has been alluded to, is the American College of Veterinary
    Internal Medicine has elevated its assessment of the degree of
    seriousness of EIPH.
        We reopened this issue in 2011 because it has always been a
    controversial issue within the racing industry. We brought in
    experts, veterinary experts, research experts, and we concluded
    that there was no science that would necessitate taking away
    this medication that is given either for reason or
    prophylactically to protect the health of the horse when it
    races.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Fravel, you said in your testimony that the
    Breeders' Cup conducts out-of-competition testing on
    approximately 85 percent of all starters in the Breeders' Cup
    and put prospective starters under 24-hour surveillance 72
    hours prior to the start time. Are such stringent measures
    common or is the Breeders' Cup more unique in this respect?
        Mr. Fravel. I would say, other than Hong Kong and Japan,
    that the regimen that we have established for the Breeders' Cup
    is the most strict in the world, certainly the most strict in
    the United States.
        As I said in my written testimony, the processes that are
    implemented on large event days, like the Triple Crown races,
    the Breeders' Cup, I think security testing, out-of-competition
    testing, is all very advanced. It is the day-to-day racing
    where I think the public lacks the confidence that those same
    kind of safeguards are in place, and the same level of
    expertise in the testing and enforcement is missing.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Janney, opponents of the bill have shared
    concerns about the USADA's lack of expertise in veterinary
    science for horses specifically. Do you see that as being an
    obstacle to implementing H.R. 2651?
        Mr. Janney. I don't. We humans share 98-plus percent of our
    DNA with horses. And most of the drugs that are coming into the
    horse industry that could be described as performance enhancing
    are coming from human medicine. There is really not a huge
    amount of research in new drugs that are in the equine field.
    It is really all coming from the human side.
        And USADA has a huge amount of expertise in figuring all
    that out, and it has to be very intelligence-based testing. You
    have got to know what you are looking for, because if the
    molecule has changed in any way, you are not going to find it.
    So really, I think they are the best people to go forward with
    this.
        We are in a new world. I would love it to be a different
    world where people didn't take an edge, but they are taking an
    edge now in a way that is far more effective than it used to
    be. And that is our problem. And we have to work very closely
    with the other sports to figure out what is happening.
        It used to be we only had to worry about what was going on
    in the harness industry and whether it was migrating over into
    the Thoroughbreds. That isn't the case anymore. It could be a
    Russian athlete that is taking something and it works pretty
    well in a horse too.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I didn't think Russians would be in horse races.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        And just to let the committee know that we might have votes
    as early as 11:15, so I would like to make sure that all
    members keep their questions at 5 minutes so we can get the
    questions in prior to votes.
        So at this time, the gentleman from West Virginia is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I come from northern West Virginia in Wheeling, and I grew
    up around Wheeling Downs, Big Bill Lias, and this issue is
    certainly something that we would have heard about back then
    about the doping of horses and all the problems we had back
    then. But in that area, now, Wheeling Downs then switched over
    to Greyhound racing, but we still have the meadows and
    Mountaineer Park. So it is something very much a horse
    industry, is very important to me and how we have done that
    growing up around it.
        So I have got to say that in the few years, 8 years I have
    been here, when people come before the panel, there is
    sometimes a little bit of confusion of whether or not they are
    with us or against us on this--on any particular bill, but not
    on this one.
        You two, Hamelback and Martin, I don't know if you didn't
    get the memo. Your passion came out pretty strongly about where
    you stand on this, so I am fascinated with that, but I want to
    hear the counter to it as we debate this.
        So, Mr. Fravel, tell me where they are wrong. We heard the
    testimony. Where are they wrong?
        Mr. Fravel. Well, the gist of a lot of this testimony is,
    things are going fine, we are doing well, don't mess with us,
    that we don't need a national program, we can do it all
    ourselves.
        Mr. Janney mentioned yesterday an example, and I mentioned
    it in my testimony in California. One of the four components of
    the National Uniform Medication Program was third-party LASIX
    administration. It took 4 years to get that done in California.
        A year-and-a-half ago, we all met in Arizona, and we
    adopted, as part of the RMTC and RCI, the out-of-competition
    testing rules. Yesterday, after 18 months of deliberation in
    California, that was referred back to committee because the
    rule was claimed to be unclear or failed to meet the
    Administrative Procedures Act.
        I am concerned with this conversation focusing so much on
    LASIX. If we came up with a new medication tomorrow that could
    be administered 24 hours out and prevented EIPH, it would take
    4 years under the current system to get that implemented
    nationally because there would be so much arguing over its
    effectiveness and research and everything else. The current
    system takes too long. It takes forever.
        Mr. McKinley. Let me go to Mr. Hamelback, if we could. You
    have been hearing the testimony now on the other side of the
    issue. Where are they wrong, so that you could refute or
    bolster your case? What should I be listening to?
        Because the concern I have a little bit is the fact that
    internationally they can use LASIX up until the day of the race
    and they can't on the day of the race. So I need to be educated
    a little bit more about that position and also in debating what
    you are hearing their testimony. Where are they wrong?
        Mr. Hamelback. First off, as the son of a Marine and United
    States American, I am not sure that I really worry about what
    they do internationally. What we do in the United States is the
    number one industry in the world, period.
        I think the burden of proof comes to them. They need to
    tell us why this is necessary, because statistically it is not.
    Plain and simple. There is no proof of what we are doing
    currently needs further oversight.
        Do we need more time and money to be spent on researching,
    as Mr. Janney said, designer drugs? Absolutely. Do I need to
    continue to hear LASIX equated as a drug? I do not. LASIX is a
    therapeutic medication, no different than Advil. I take LASIX
    every day for high blood pressure. It is safe. It is effective
    for a problem that was elevated to a disease. And I need to
    make sure, as the only one that raised horses up here, it is
    the health and welfare of the horse that we take care of first.
        So, yes, I would say that my members would be the first to
    stand and say if there was a medication proven that would be as
    effective or preventing EIPH and you could administer it 36
    hours out, that is what is best for the horse, that is what our
    mission statement says, that is what we are going to do.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you. And I yield back my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fascinating subject,
    passionate on both sides.
        I was a doctor before I was in Congress, so I am not a
    veterinarian, but I was a people doctor. And so I am fascinated
    with how this is focused on LASIX. As a heart surgeon, I gave
    people LASIX all the time.
        And so when you get down to the facts, here is what we need
    to know, I think, when you want to determine whether a
    medication is effective or not. First of all, what is the
    incidence of the disease you are trying to treat; whether or
    not the medication you are giving treats it; in what percentage
    of patients it is effective to treat the problem that you are
    proposing you are treating. And you also want to make sure
    there is clinical significance in the problem that you are
    treating.
        And I am not convinced of any of those things as it relates
    to LASIX in horseracing, other than the fact that horses lose a
    bunch of weight, which gives a racing advantage, clearly.
        So I guess I would start with Mr. Fravel here. What is the
    information that says, number one, the instance of this problem
    is significant enough? You said, Mr. Janney, 90 percent of
    horses, no problems. So you are down to 10 percent, roughly.
    What is the incidence of the disease? Is the medication being
    used to treat that disease? What is the effectiveness of it?
    And is there a clinical significance in treating the disease
    enough to actually treat it?
        Mr. Fravel. Let me try to give you my laymen's
    understanding of those questions. One, all horses bleed to some
    degree under intense levels of exercise. That was only
    discovered, as Mr. Janney said, with the introduction of the
    flexible endoscope.
        Mr. Bucshon. Can I interrupt you then on that? That is a
    good point, because that means that, was there overt clinical
    evidence of bleeding prior to looking down into the airway and
    say, hey, there is a little bit of blood there?
        Mr. Fravel. There was only the incidence of epistaxis from
    the nose. And I think the incidence of that in Hong Kong, for
    example, is about 4 percent----
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. So very, very low incidence of actual
    clinical evidence.
        Mr. Fravel. So there have been studies that were mentioned
    in South Africa that do indicate that LASIX does have a
    positive impact on horses that do bleed. So it might reduce a
    four to a three or a two to a one.
        The other answer to some of those questions,
    physiologically we don't know the impact on individual horses.
    People say, well, it is not performance enhancing. My wife,
    when she has one glass of wine, is a lot different than I am
    when I have one glass of wine. So we don't know, actually, in
    individual equines how that medication affects their individual
    performance. Their trainers may have a better idea than I would
    or the wagering public would, but we don't know the answer to
    that.
        The final part of that question is I believe there has been
    some research that indicates that although there is some
    pathological change in the lungs as a result of bleeding over
    time, we don't have any indication that that has reduced the
    life expectancy of horses, their useful life as a racehorse,
    nor is there any clinical indication that there is a disease
    that follows that pathology. So----
        Mr. Bucshon. Mr. Janney, and then I will have one of the
    other people that opposes the bill give their comments.
        Quickly, do you have anything to add?
        Mr. Janney. Well, I think that one of the things that you
    have to worry about is the perception on the industry and being
    out of step with the rest of the world. I disagree a bit with
    my colleague over here on the left. We sell our horses in
    international markets. There is a reason that Keeneland has
    written a letter supporting this bill. I think that reason is
    that every other national association talks about why U.S.
    horses are inferior. Whether that is true or not, I am not
    saying.
        The second thing is that Mr. Gagliano, who is president of
    The Jockey Club, is always going to international forums. And
    at those forums, always the other international bodies say why
    should we accredit your races in the United States when you run
    on race-day medications?
        Mr. Bucshon. I am going to interrupt you there because I
    have only got a few seconds left. Thank you.
        Anyone else?
        Mr. Martin, quickly. Do you have any comments?
        Mr. Martin. I think the history of LASIX is well known. I
    think the research that has been done subsequent to the 30
    years when it was first put in place probably makes the case
    more to permit it. As far as international, in North America,
    Canada allows LASIX. There are a ton of standardbred horses
    that cross the border and race----
        Mr. Bucshon. I am going to interrupt you there because the
    chairman wants me to stay on time, and thank you all for your
    comments.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
    back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our panel
    for being here. Thank you, Andy, for leading on this.
        Mr. Foreman, are states' racing commissions equipped to
    properly regulate the horseracing industry?
        Mr. Foreman. They have done it for over a century and they
    are doing it now, so the answer is yes.
        Mr. Mullin. Would you consider horseracing, though, out of
    state? Would you consider it more of a national sport than just
    a state sport at this point?
        Mr. Foreman. Our sport is national to the extent that we
    are permitted to simulcast our races throughout the country and
    that we have betters who are betting on races.
        Mr. Mullin. I am asking this because I know the answer to
    this. Do the horses travel across state lines?
        Mr. Foreman. Particularly in the midatlantic, which is the
    largest concentration in the United States, they are crossing
    state lines every day.
        Mr. Mullin. So commerce would be traveling across state
    lines at that point, right?
        Mr. Foreman. Yes.
        Mr. Mullin. OK. And I think that is kind of what we are--of
    course, we are talking a lot about LASIX here. I get that. But
    the fact is is that Congress does have a role for the commerce
    side of it, that is why we are Energy and Commerce, when it
    crosses state lines, even when it comes to sports.
        I do not like regulations at all. I think we are equipped
    to regulate ourselves, so everybody needs to understand that.
    But Congress does have a role when it starts crossing states'
    lines. That is a role that we have to regulate.
        And so when we are starting to talk about the bill and
    talking about moving forward, it is not about the industry. The
    industry can oversee itself. Those that are participating can
    oversee it. So we have got 32 different jurisdictions that are
    working to try to uniform the standards right now inside the
    horseracing, I get all that. But what role does Congress have
    to play?
        In this particular role, when we start talking about the
    horseracing industry, not track to track, does Congress have a
    role to play in this or not?
        Mr. Janney. Very quick answer. If you all hadn't passed the
    Interstate Horse Racing Act, we wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be
    in the business, and there really wouldn't be an industry.
        Mr. Mullin. Mr. Hamelback?
        Mr. Hamelback. Does Congress play a role in NASCAR? They
    travel from state to state and compete in different----
        Mr. Mullin. We do some. We also do in NCA sports, and we do
    in the NFL. We do in major league baseball, in the NBA. Not in
    the UFC, but we will with MMA.
        Mr. Hamelback. But ultimately, each commission of the 34
    pari-mutuel governed jurisdictions, which Oklahoma, obviously
    you have Will Rogers Downs, Thoroughbred Racing Association of
    Oklahoma.
        Mr. Mullin. The Oklahoma horseracing industry is not for
    this, and I understand it. I am not for overregulating. I am
    just asking the question, does Congress have a role to play in
    it or not?
        Mr. Hamelback. I do not think so. Each state is 100 percent
    uniform that has racing.
        Mr. Mullin. But the horses travel outside the state if it
    is----
        Mr. Hamelback. You have to abide by the rules that are in
    that state.
        Mr. Mullin. And the horses travel from track to track, and
    the owners travel from track to track, right?
        Mr. Hamelback. Right.
        Mr. Mullin. Yes. My first cousin, who is a very good friend
    of mine, very close, we traveled all over the place, rodeoing
    together, because my background is rodeoing. I think quarter
    horses are better than thoroughbreds, but, that is my jab
    there, guys, so go with me. Make light of the situation.
        But he shoes horses all over the place. He travels from
    track to track, which makes the industry not just regulated or
    not just overseen by just one state. I don't like it any more
    than anybody else. I don't want to overregulate the industry.
    The industry is successful and it is working. I get that. But
    Congress does have a role to play here.
        As much as I don't like it, that is the end of--really,
    that is the end or the beginning of our conversation. When it
    crosses a state line, that is where our role plays. That is why
    we have interstate commerce and intrastate commerce. That is
    why there are two different things.
        Yes, sir.
        Mr. Janney. The difference between NASCAR and us is we are
    betting. Now, sports betting is coming.
        Mr. Mullin. I am sure there is no betting on NASCAR.
        Mr. Janney. Well, sports betting is coming, and you will
    have, as a committee, I am sure, a very interesting question as
    to what you want to do. But the fact of the matter is, the
    reason we are all here is the Interstate Simulcasting Act, and
    people in California are betting on New York races and vice
    versa. And that is really the important element.
        Mr. Mullin. Mr. Foreman, go ahead.
        Mr. Foreman. Congressman, interestingly, the Interstate
    Horse Racing Act does not regulate simulcasting. Simulcasting
    is regulated by the states.
        Mr. Mullin. I agree with that.
        Mr. Foreman. All that the Interstate Horse Racing Act does
    is prevent simulcasting to states that have not legalized
    gambling, and lets the industry regulate but permits it in
    states that allow it.
        Mr. Mullin. Right. I feel we are a long way from getting
    this fixed, but this is a conversation that needs to be had.
    And I appreciate Congressman Barr for bringing this up because,
    as we do need to look forward, we do need to understand what
    role we have or haven't to play in this.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        Mr. Hamelback, in your testimony, you state that the U.S.
    Anti-Doping Agency lacks equine knowledge. How do you think
    that will affect or impede their ability to be effective?
        Mr. Hamelback. Certainly, we feel like it is well known and
    publicized that the United States Anti-Doping Agency has
    experience in human testing professional human sports. It is
    our belief that while they do have that expertise in humans,
    crossing over to the equine world is not only different, it is
    logistically different. Nothing in this piece of legislation
    actually puts them doing anything different than we already
    have in place now.
        Mr. Costello. Share briefly the logistical differences.
        Mr. Hamelback. Beg your pardon?
        Mr. Costello. Share briefly the logistical differences that
    you are referencing.
        Mr. Hamelback. Well, for one, I would say the quantity
    number of tests. And one thing that we have continued to not be
    exposed to is the economic impact that this is going to have on
    our industry. To me, I see that as a very logistically
    difficult hurdle to get over. At this point, nothing has been
    done as far as an economic study to show us what this is going
    to cost with a new, some could say two new regulatory
    bureaucratic layers added onto us already.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        Mr. Fravel, I invite you to respond to anything that might
    have been said, as well as explain to the committee more about
    the potential abuse of designer drugs in horseracing.
        Mr. Fravel. Is that question for me?
        Mr. Costello. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Fravel. Well, I think all of us read in popular
    publications how designer drugs are introduced on a daily
    basis. And, the term ``designer drugs'' is probably overstated.
    There is constant research in human medicine directed at
    developing new medications. And, somehow or another, those
    things find their way into horseracing or athletics or areas
    they weren't intended at all.
        So, the concern here is that we don't have a concerted
    national effort to identify threats as they occur, whether
    those be genomic alterations or designer drugs or other kinds
    of practices that none of us are aware of. It is hard for those
    of us who are honest, honestly, to come up with devious things
    that other people come up with, but we need to find a national
    organization to identify those threats and deal with them.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        Mr. Foreman. Congressman, if I could just respond to your
    question about USADA?
        Mr. Costello. Yes, and then I have a followup.
        Mr. Foreman. USADA does not regulate the performance horse
    industry that participates in the Olympics in this country.
    They may do to the human athletes, but they do not do the
    equine competitions. That is regulated by the United States
    Equestrian Federation, which has its own governing body, its
    own regulations, and its own laboratory.
        So, clearly, USADA is not capable and qualified, or they
    would be doing the work of the Olympic Committee and the
    performance horse industry in this country.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        You indicated there is also total uniformity as it relates
    to banning performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing. If that
    is the case, why do proponents of this bill still wish to see
    it enacted?
        Mr. Foreman. Well, as I have said in my testimony, I don't
    think it is about uniformity. I think it is about LASIX, and I
    think it is about getting the regulation of the sport into the
    hands of those who are not the state regulators who are
    permitting the practice right now. And I think that is
    fundamentally what is going on here, and I think you can hear
    it in the debate.
        The industry is focused on performance-enhancing drugs. The
    industry is focused on every aspect of medication and drug
    testing. The industry created a consortium back in 2004 that
    would be the scientific arm of the industry, because that is
    what those who are proponents wanted--an independent scientific
    arm to advise the industry on medication matters.
        And that is an organization that has done very well. It is
    one we rely on. And they are the scientific body of the
    industry that makes the recommendations to us. And, quite
    frankly, when it comes to the work we are doing with designer
    drugs or other new drugs that are entering the marketplace and
    into racing, we do that research and we do that work through
    the RMTC.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        Any quick followup from anyone on those points?
        Go ahead, Mr. Martin.
        Mr. Martin. The issue of designer drugs has come up, and
    the lack of some kind of organization. You are sitting next to
    one, and the RMTC is another one, and the Association of Racing
    Chemists is a third. And when we get information about the use
    of a particular substance, it goes into that network in various
    ways.
        And I know the New York lab has come under some criticism
    here, but I used to be the racing and wagering executive
    director in New York. And the first time I met Dr. Maylin, that
    is when I started to appreciate--he would spend all his free
    time on the internet, cruising the blogs of other sports to see
    what they were using and then trying to develop ways to detect
    that.
        And that has not changed in all of those years. As a matter
    of fact, it was the New York lab that recently discovered the
    use of a designer drug that nobody else had the ability to test
    for, and then that was circulated out through the network of
    labs.
        We may not be real good at tooting our own horn, but there
    is a system in place. It may not be perfect, but there is a
    system in place. And we work every day to strengthen it and try
    to make it better.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you. I encourage you to supplement your
    testimony with any additional written response.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        The gentleman's time has expired.
        And the chair recognizes himself at this time.
        Mr. Foreman, are there any concerns with having the Federal
    Trade Commission oversee this type of a program? I am not aware
    of a similar program overseen by the agency, and I would
    appreciate your thoughts on that.
        Mr. Foreman. I am not aware of any other program similar
    either, particularly in our industry.
        I think it is interesting that the involvement of the
    Federal Trade Commission, obviously, invokes consumer
    protection. And I envision--and I said it in my statement, and
    I wasn't engaging in a hyperbole--that if there is a move to
    eliminate LASIX in this country, in racing in the United
    States, it is going to force owners out of the business. It is
    going to force at horse sales that go on in many states
    throughout the country, auctions and sales, a disclaimer that
    is going to have to be put on horses that are sold that they
    are potential bleeders, that they may suffer this incidence of
    EIPH, that they will not be able to treat that horse for
    racing, and that horse may not be able to race.
        Now, can you envision buying an automobile or a product
    where you are told at the time of sale that this product may
    have a problem, it is likely to have a problem, you are not
    going to be able to fix it in a way that you can use it? Are
    you going to buy that product? And that is why you don't see
    the breeders organizations throughout the country supporting
    this bill. Because they know what is going to happen; it is
    going to chill sales.
        You have owners who have horses that bleed. If you take
    this medication away from them, they will leave the business.
    Where are those horses going to go? This is not Europe. We have
    thousands of races in this country. We have 32 states
    conducting racing on a daily or a seasonal basis. We have tens
    of thousands of people employed in this business, and it is
    labor-intensive. You take these animals off the racetrack;
    where are they going to go? And that is the welfare crisis that
    I am talking about.
        And I am sure many of you have heard from constituents who
    are in this industry and what effect what you think is a simple
    change will have on the economics of the horseracing industry.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        In the balance of my time, Mr. Janney, in your testimony,
    you mentioned the use of a number of drugs in reference to
    milkshaking. Would you explain what this is and what you have
    seen with respect to cheaters using this type of method?
        Mr. Janney. Well, milkshaking has probably had its heyday,
    but, basically, what it was doing was loading up with
    bicarbonate, which had an effect on slowing the deterioration
    of strength in the muscles because it slowed down the oxygen
    leaving the muscles. I am not a scientist, but that is
    basically what was going on, and horses were being loaded up
    with bicarbonate.
        After quite a long time, the industry addressed it. They
    did address it on a state-by-state basis. It did take, as I
    say, a very long time, but, fundamentally, we are able to look
    at levels of oxygen in the blood and come to some
    determination.
        Having lived through it in New York, where I was on the New
    York racing board, I can tell you that the limit was set so
    high that it still allowed a fair amount of milkshaking to go
    on. The numbers were such that you could go over that but you
    could also milkshake and stay under that limit. And that is
    kind of where we are today.
        But there is no question that milkshaking can be effective
    and that horses end up with more stamina, to complete the race.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        I am going to yield the balance of my time. And I see that
    we have no other members wishing to ask questions. But, first
    of all, I want to thank our panel for being with us today. It
    has been a very informational and informative meeting today.
        But before we conclude, I would like to ask for the
    following documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous
    consent, and we have quite a number: A letter from the American
    Quarter Horse Association; a letter from American Racing and
    Entertainment; a letter from Chris McCarron; a letter from the
    Equine Health and Welfare Alliance; a packet of documents from
    Alan Foreman; testimony from William Lear of The Jockey Club; a
    letter from the Stronach Group; a letter from the Ohio State
    Racing Commission; a letter from Barbara Banke of Stonestreet;
    testimony from Matt Luliano of The Jockey Club; documents and a
    letter from Dr. Thomas Tobin; testimony from William Thomas of
    Keeneland Association; a letter from the New Racing
    Association; a letter from the U.S. Trotting Association; a
    letter from West Point Thoroughbreds; a letter from the
    Kentucky Thoroughbred Association; a letter from the North
    American Association of Racetrack Veterinarians; a letter from
    the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association; a letter from
    Shawn Smeallie of the Coalition for Horse Racing Integrity; a
    collection of documents from the Humane Society of the United
    States; and a letter and roster from the Water, Hay, Oats
    Alliance.
        [The information has been retained in committee files and
    can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/
    20180622/108463/HHRG-115-IF17-20180622-SD003.pdf.]
        Mr. Latta. And, with that, I again want to thank our
    witnesses for testifying today. And as I mentioned a little
    earlier, if there are additional questions that would be
    submitted the record by our members, that we would have about a
    10-day period for you all to answer those letters.
        So, again, I appreciate you all for being here today and
    for your testimony.
        And, at this time, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]