[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 109 (Thursday, September 7, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6316-H6337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN HORSE SLAUGHTER PREVENTION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 981 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 503.
{time} 1200
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 503) to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping,
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing,
selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for
human consumption, and for other purposes, with Mr. Putnam in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
As designees of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Sweeney) each will control 10 minutes.
As designees of the minority leader, the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I know that H.R. 503 is an emotional issue for many
people. It is my hope that this debate will give us a chance to look
beyond the emotion and actually explore the facts of the issue in this
particular bill. It is important that this discussion be fair, that it
be open; and to that end the committee that I chair, the Energy and
Commerce Committee, held a hearing a month ago that included witnesses
from both sides and was fair and balanced. We put together a completely
balanced hearing; and at the end of that hearing, it was clear to me
that the majority of the experts have spoken, and they have spoken that
H.R. 503 is bad policy and that it is bad for horses.
It is not a secret that I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
Despite what may have been said, it is not because I do not like
horses. It is not because I had some bad experience when I was young.
In fact, I had and continue to have very positive experiences with
horses. My opposition to this bill stems from the simple fact that it
comes with negative consequences that I believe are being overlooked.
Ever since the bill has been introduced, I have been bombarded by
calls, letters, and meeting requests from people both in my district
and all over the country on both sides of the issue. I have heard from
ranchers and horse owners as well as the American Quarter Horse
Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American
Association of Equine Practitioners, American Farm Bureau, National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers
Association. The list goes on and on. I have also been approached by
proponents of the bill that are very supportive and very emotionally
and strongly attached to this particular bill. Unfortunately for those
folks, I must say that I am opposed to the bill because the majority of
the evidence is that it is a bad bill. In fact, over 200 national
organizations oppose the bill. Yesterday, even the United States
Department of Agriculture came out in opposition to the bill. These are
groups that, frankly, I consider to be representative of rural America,
and they have all said the same thing: H.R. 503 will lead to a
miserable existence for thousands of horses and is an outright attack
at animal agriculture.
The care and the overall health of the animals, and notably the
rights of their owners, should always be the primary concern when
taking up legislation of this nature. Processing unmanageable and
unwanted horses provides a humane alternative to continuing a
[[Page H6317]]
life of discomfort, inadequate care, or possibly even abandonment for
thousands of horses.
Mandatory United States Department of Agriculture inspection, which
abides by strict laws monitoring the welfare of animals in the
processing facility, assures that horses that are going to slaughter
are treated humanely. It is also important to note that since last
year's agriculture appropriations bill was enacted, the three American
processing plants pay for those inspectors out of their own pockets. No
expense to the taxpayer.
I might say on this note that the proponents of the bill have said
repeatedly that the Cattlemen's Association gets $3 for every horse
that is taken to slaughter. That is a true statement. But the reason
that $3 is paid is because it is the Cattlemen's Association, at least
in Texas, that is actually paying for the inspectors to inspect the
horses that are brought to the slaughterhouse in Texas. So that is why
you have the $3-per-horse fee. It is because in last year's agriculture
appropriations bill, we said that those inspectors could not be paid
for with Federal funds; therefore, an arrangement has been made between
the slaughterhouses in Texas and the Cattlemen's Association that the
inspectors will be paid for by providing this fee to the Cattlemen's
Association that pays the inspectors.
H.R. 503 provides no alternative for thousands of horse owners for
whom continued care of an animal is no longer economical or in some
cases humane.
The other concern the bill raises for me is one of private property
rights. While a majority of my constituents live in the Arlington/Fort
Worth area down in Texas, the geography of the district that I
represent is almost entirely rural. Animal agriculture is a large part
of the economy for much of my district, and agriculture is already one
of the most extensively regulated industries in the United States of
America.
In the name of animal welfare, the United States Department of
Agriculture right now tells owners how they can and cannot transport
their animals. In the name of consumer safety, the United States
Department of Agriculture right now tells them what they can and cannot
feed their animals. This bill would tell producers to whom they can and
cannot sell their horses. As a long-time proponent of limited
government, I take issue with this last statement.
The horse owners in question have fed, housed, and cared for their
animals, in some cases for decades, at great personal expense. When an
animal reaches the point when he or she is no longer productive for the
owner, who are we then to deny an owner the opportunity to recover some
small portion of their costs that they have incurred in caring for the
animal so far in its life? Why should they not be allowed to sell their
animal to a legal, humane, and closely regulated processing facility?
Now, I understand that there are many groups that strongly support
this particular bill and some of the thoroughbred associations are
strongly in support of H.R. 503. If they have the money to pay for
their horses, if they have the money to take care of their horses, that
is fine. They do not have to take them to a slaughterhouse. That is
freedom of choice. But for many ordinary Americans who do not have the
resources that some of the more well-heeled thoroughbred associations
and horse farms have, I think having a slaughterhouse option is a
humane option.
Again, I understand that this is an emotional issue for many people.
But I do not think Congress should vote purely on emotion. I think
there should be common sense brought into the equation. And when you
really look at the bill in that light, the obvious vote, at least for
me, is a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Otter) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to
control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho will control the remainder of
the time at the designation of the majority leader.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter
Prevention Act, which would put an end to the deplorable practice of
slaughtering American horses for consumption.
As a strong supporter of animal rights, a horse lover, a former horse
owner, I have joined with 202 of my colleagues from both sides of the
aisle as a cosponsor of H.R. 503. 550 national and State organizations
also support H.R. 503, and I have received over 900 communications from
constituents in support of the bill.
Congress has already expressed its desire to put an end to horse
slaughter by voting to amend the fiscal year 2006 agriculture
appropriations bill to ban the practice. That amendment passed by an
overwhelming vote of 269-158 in the House, 69-28 in the Senate.
However, the language that passed in both the House and Senate stating
that no Federal dollars could be used to fund the inspection of horse
slaughter plants, thus ending the practice, was stripped out. The
Republican leadership, in an act of hubris, changed the language in
conference to allow for flexibility in interpretation of that ban and
allowed the plants to continue to operate. This is going against
congressional intent and has been taken to the courts.
Congress voted to put an end to horse slaughter in this country
because horses are some of the most beautiful and beloved domesticated
animals on Earth. Earlier this year the story of Barbaro, the Kentucky
Derby winner that shattered his leg at the start of the Preakness,
transfixed millions of Americans. Since his injury, the thoroughbred
has received an incredible outpouring of letters, flowers, apples, and
carrots from Americans across the country. Fans have even made
pilgrimages to Barbaro's care facility in Pennsylvania to wish him well
in his long recovery. Americans are rooting for Barbaro because they
have been inspired by his strength, his beauty, and his strong
personality.
Americans have long appreciated horses for transport, on ranches, as
police mounts, and as cherished companions. The American Horse Council
reports that 1.9 million Americans currently own horses. Another 7.1
million Americans are involved in the industry as horse owners, service
providers, employees, and volunteers, while tens of millions
participate in horse events as spectators. These millions of Americans
know that horses should be treated with dignity and respect in life and
death. They are disgusted, as I am, that in 2005 over 90,000 horses
were slaughtered at three American-based foreign-owned plants, and I
stress foreign-owned plants, so that meat could be shipped to Europe
and Asia for consumption as a delicacy.
Horses bound for slaughter must endure inhumane conditions on the way
to and during slaughter. Horses are shipped frequently for long
distances in terrible conditions. They are crammed together in trucks
built for cattle and pigs. Because of the cramped transport, they are
often trampled and some horses arrive at the slaughterhouse seriously
injured or dead. Once at the slaughterhouse, horses are often not
rendered unconscious before they are killed, as mandated by Federal
law.
Most people assume that all or most of the horses bought for
slaughter are old or injured. In fact, according to the USDA guidelines
for handling and transporting equines for slaughter, 92.3 percent of
horses that arrive at slaughter plants are in ``good'' condition,
meaning they are not injured, lame, overweight, or underweight. Healthy
animals, pets, and former race horses are all sent to slaughter.
We may hear today that it is likened to being humane to animals in
order to oppose this legislation. It could not be further from the
truth. The humane vote is to vote in favor of this legislation to ban
the inhumane slaughter of horses.
Earlier I mentioned Barbaro, the Kentucky Derby winner. Ferdinand,
the winner of the 1986 Derby, faced a very different fate. After his
momentous Derby victory, Ferdinand was killed for food in a Japanese
slaughterhouse in 2002. Just imagine if Barbaro faced the same end.
Not surprisingly, a recent poll conducted by public opinion
strategists found that 65 percent of Americans do not support horse
slaughter, and 64 percent of Americans believe that horses
[[Page H6318]]
are companions like dogs and cats and killing a horse to eat is not
different than killing a cat or dog to eat.
I am sure that other Members of this body have received hundreds of
letters too from constituents who oppose horse slaughter and support
H.R. 503. I think it is time to listen to the American public and
finally end the barbaric practice of horse slaughter by passing H.R.
503. Let us not sign off on Barbaro burgers.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 503.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I submit for the Record an editorial from the Dallas Morning News and
also an editorial from the Star-Telegram.
A Humane End: Slaughter Prevents Wider Suffering
[From the Dallas Morning News, Sept. 7, 2006]
Few issues roil the emotions more than those involving the
dependent and helpless. Hence, the turbulent debate over a
proposal in Congress to end the legal slaughter of horses
that feed overseas meat markets.
It's not right to dismiss or belittle the strongly held
beliefs of animal advocates on the matter. They argue that
the horse is a loyal service and companion animal that should
not end up on someone's dinner table. Indeed, most Americans'
sensibilities align with that view.
But the grisly alternative to humane slaughter is a slow,
painful end for tens of thousands of castoff animals every
year.
In a poignant irony, major veterinary groups are lined up
against a slaughter ban. They argue persuasively that enough
buyers or adoptive homes couldn't be found for all horses
deemed too old, unfit or expensive by their owners.
Maintaining a horse for its natural life can exceed
$25,000, even short of veterinary care.
The federal government, despite help from rescue
organizations, already fails to find homes for thousands of
wild horses culled each year from herds roaming national
grasslands. Think of boosting the number of unwanted animals
by the 60,000 to 100,000 horses that now go to slaughter
annually. That would recklessly invite widespread abandonment
and starvation.
Two of the nation's three horse slaughterhouses are in
North Texas, the foreign-owned Dallas Crown in Kaufman and
Beltex in Fort Worth. It's a closely regulated business aimed
at humane treatment, from transport to euthanasia.
Some slaughter opponents say a better end for unwanted
horses would be veterinarian-administered euthanasia. That
position ignores the pivotal issue of added cost for
rendering, incineration or burial.
Exported horse meat heads primarily to Europe and Asia,
where no cultural taboo is attached to consumption. Top
consumers are mostly developing nations with a need for added
protein in the diet. Thus, the slaughtered horse makes a
final contribution to the cycle of life.
In this country, at least, the law seeks to guarantee a
humane end, in keeping with the horse's honored place in
national lore. Congress should devote its energies toward
keeping things that way, thus avoiding the unwanted
consequence of needless suffering.
____
[From the Star-Telegram, Sept. 1, 2006]
Siring Problems
The federal bill grabbing the attention of horse lovers and
animal rights activists bans the ``shipping, transporting,
moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing,
selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be
slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.''
The ``other purposes'' aren't outlined in HR 503, which is
scheduled for a House vote on Thursday, but the result of
this bill's passage would be to shut down an industry that
provides a practical public service: disposal of the remains
of dead horses.
It must be acknowledged up front that lots of Americans
will never be convinced that allowing the slaughter of horses
for sale as meat--for carnivores in zoos, canines at home or
connoisseurs in Cannes--is a public service.
To some people, horses are more than ``mere property,'' as
Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the American Humane
Society, wrote in an Aug. 23 guest column. But as horse
breeder Jay Novacek rightly pointed out in the Aug. 21 column
that triggered Pacelle's response, not all horses are pets,
and not every horse owner has the financial resources to keep
a horse until it dies of natural causes and then pay to bury
or burn the carcass.
Maintaining a horse until its natural death averages
$25,740 per animal, not including veterinary care for
sickness or injury, according to a June report (commissioned
by the Animal Welfare Council) about the consequences of a
horse slaughter ban. The average lifespan of a horse is 20 to
25 years.
Pacelle is correct in that before Americans had trucks and
cars to deliver the mail and packages, horses were the common
mode of transportation. They were work animals. But
romanticizing those relationships as something other than
people appreciating the tools they needed to do their jobs is
an attempt to play every emotional note possible.
Harkening back to a time when ``almost everyone knew how to
ride a horse'' reveals a nostalgia for a day when people had
few alternative forms of transportation other than their own
two feet. Pardon us for saying that we aren't anxious to
return to that chapter in history.
One can respect and be grateful for the horse's role in
U.S. history without ignoring the pragmatic problems of what
to do with a dead or unwanted one.
Shuttering the Beltex processing plant in Fort Worth won't
put an end to ``grim news'' for the estimated 70,000 to
100,000 American horses that are slaughtered annually unless
there's some way to cheat death for four-legged animals, or a
pipeline to 70,000 to 100,000 people financially capable of
caring for these animals.
No matter how much their owners appreciate them, horses get
old and sick, and they die. Something has to be done with the
carcass. And the affordable ``something'' for tens of
thousands of people is the slaughterhouse. Incineration can
cost as much as $2,000, and lots of areas have ordinances
that make it illegal to bury Flicka in the back 40.
If public health, humane treatment or nuisance issues are
discovered relating to the three horse processing plants
operating in the United States (two of them in Texas), it's
totally appropriate for government to address them. But U.S.
history books are rife with examples of bad laws resulting
from emotional appeals.
If passed, HR 503 will not save one horse's life, nor will
it do anything to guarantee humane treatment for the animals.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives is voting today
on an amendment to the Horse Protection Act that actually would
irresponsibly endanger the welfare of the very animal that it purports
to help. I oppose H.R. 503, which is driven by raw emotion and
misinformation rather than by the facts. By eliminating the option of
humane slaughter of the horses, the bill provides no directive as to
what will happen to the 90,000 unwanted horses annually processed in
our slaughter facilities. It increases the probability of unwanted
horses becoming the victims of neglect, starvation, or abandonment. It
criminalizes a legitimate and legal U.S. industry. It eliminates
hundreds of U.S. jobs. It mandates costs estimated at $3 billion to $4
billion on private citizens. And it creates far more problems than it
actually solves.
{time} 1215
It limits horse owners' choices for disposing of their animals, and
it infringes on the owners' private property rights. Private property
rights have long been held dear by the families and the land owners in
the west, and for good reason. Their farms and ranches have been their
livelihood and part of their national heritage since the frontier was
closed and the west was settled.
Not many months ago, many of my colleagues, most of those who are on
the opposition side of this bill, on a bipartisan basis, rose in
indignation at the Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, the City of New
London, Connecticut decision, because it was taking private property
rights.
I have stood many times with many of those folks who are now
proponents of this bill to protect intellectual private property
rights. I see no difference. And like it or not, a horse is private
property. They are not humans. They must be treated humanely and cared
for appropriately. However, when a horse is no longer wanted or cannot
be cared for, Congress should not be in the business of deciding how
the animals can or cannot be disposed of.
We fight for the protection of personal property rights and
intellectual property rights, everything from dirt to ideas, Mr.
Chairman. This is no different. I strongly encourage Members to oppose
this misguided effort and continue preserving a strong tradition of
private personal property rights in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I might consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill that is before
us. When we all look at all of the important issues waiting for
Congress to act on, I cannot understand why we are here wasting so much
of our time on an issue that really has nothing to do with the pressing
problems that are facing people in this country.
But here we are today considering a bill that would effectively shut
down three horse-processing facilities and
[[Page H6319]]
eliminate a reasonable option for horse owners who can no longer afford
to care for their animals that are no longer productive.
I understand that this issue is an emotional one for many people. But
what other options are there for people who own aging horses that are
no longer productive? It costs anywhere from, people tell me, $1,200 to
$1,800 a year, some people say $2,300 a year. That is a lot of money
for most people to care for an animal that has outlived its productive
years.
Some of these aging horses are sent to horse rescue facilities. While
those facilities can provide a good home for aging horses, there are no
Federal guarantees or standards of care that must be met. There is no
guarantee that the horses at these facilities will be treated humanely.
And this bill does not provide any money to help rescue facilities
cover the additional costs that they will incur, and there is no way
that we can accommodate all of the horses that will be abandoned if we
pass this bill.
While H.R. 503 outlaws slaughter for human consumption, the bill does
not prohibit horses from being killed. Some supporters of this bill
support euthanasia as an alternative to processing. However,
euthanizing a horse is not cheap; it can cost anywhere from $300 to
$2,000 an animal depending on the local rules for carcass disposal.
Processing provides a cost effective and a humane alternative to
neglect and abandonment when horse owners are unable to find another
buyer. Caring for a horse properly is expensive, and it is time
consuming. The real question of animal welfare lies in what will happen
if the slaughter ban is imposed. These unwanted horses are often sick,
unfit or problem animals. Many of them are already living in pain or
discomfort, and tens of thousands more could be neglected, starved or
abandoned if their owners no longer have processing available as an
end-of-life option.
If we pass this bill, we will ignore the fate of these animals who
find their lives extended but without the necessary standards of care
that they need and deserve. So at the end of the day, this bill is not
about protecting horses from an untimely death; all it will do is limit
the option of horse owners and burden them with additional costs of
care and disposal.
The House Agriculture Committee recognized the many weaknesses in
this bill and voted to recommend that the House not pass this bill by a
vote of 37-3.
The Members of our committee represent agricultural areas around the
country, areas where people own and use horses every day. We passed
several amendments to this bill during our committee mark-up, but they
are not included in the bill that we are considering here today.
This shows a complete lack of respect for the expertise and the
effort that the Agriculture Committee has contributed to this subject.
At the end of the day, this debate is about defining what is humane
when we are dealing with unwanted horses. Are we going to pass
legislation that truly addresses the health and well being of animals,
or are we going to pursue bills that amount to little more than window
dressing in the name of animal welfare?
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to set aside this emotionally
charged issue and oppose this legislation that will tie the hands of
horse owners around this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, some of us were late coming to the
floor. I would like an explanation of the division of the time on this
debate.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 981, as designees of the
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) each were
allocated 10 minutes.
As designees of the minority leader, the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each
will control 20 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining on this side
of the aisle at this point?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) has 10
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has 10
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has
10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. He has 10\1/2\ minutes because time was yielded to
him.
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The majority leader reallocated time.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today we are going to have a serious discussion that in
my estimation is long overdue. Since 1979, Members of Congress, with
the vast and substantial support of the American people, have tried to
have this issue resolved.
What I speak of is H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention
Act. Mr. Peterson, my good friend, made what I think is one point I
will agree with him on. This is a debate about what is humane. And
despite the words and the rhetoric of the opponents of this
legislation, the focus should be on the issue of what is humane and
what the will of the people are, because what we are exposing today is
a brutal, shadowy, shameful, predatory practice that borders on the
perverse.
Public opinion, as I said, is substantially in support. Every poll
that I have seen, 70 percent of the American people want this practice
banned and stopped, the practice of horse slaughter for human
consumption, something culturally the United States has never accepted
nor have any of the Indian territories within the United States.
Editorials were recited a bit earlier, but I will give you some
editorials. Today the Washington Post, with a diametrically different
view of the world than the Washington Times, both editorialized saying
that this practice should end. It reflects on our culture. It reflects
on our priorities inappropriately and improperly.
In California, a referendum was passed with 60 percent of the vote
saying that that practice should be banned in California. And there is
Texas law, and many other States have laws that ban the practice. What
H.R. 503 does is it prohibits the shipping, the transporting, the
moving, the delivering, the receiving, the purchasing, selling or
donation of horses and other equines for slaughter for human
consumption.
What I really want to emphasize though is what this practice is. The
opponents have said this is a humane process. The opponents have said
that this is going to limit individuals' rights and individuals'
property rights, none of that being true.
What this is going to do is stop a practice that, first of all, is in
violation of many State laws and, secondly, is not adhered to or
supported by substantial populations, and it is brutal.
This picture here, this is a horse's head. This is a horse's head
that was discovered in transport to one of the slaughter houses. What
we have here are three slaughter house factories, two in Texas, one in
Illinois, both operating with substantial local opposition and
presenting substantial environmental and economic problems to those
communities.
What we have are horses from all over the country, thousands of miles
away, transported in cramped cattle or pig trailers or trucks. Not
designed or built for horses, not designed to transport horses. They
are often purchased in a predatory fashion by killer-buyers who do not
disclose what the purpose of their purchase is going to be, who, as I
said, operate in a shadowy way.
They bring these beautiful animals those thousands of miles in these
cramped conditions with all different types of horses cramped in,
despite USDA regulations that say you cannot transport them that way.
The irony, Mr. Chairman, is on the day the Agriculture Committee marked
up its bill, a bill which the amendments will be to the floor in a
little while, all meant to continue that practice, to kill H.R. 503; on
the very day they were marking up that bill, an arrest was made in
Mississippi of one of those predatory killer-buyers who had 20-25
horses in his care. He stopped because he got a flat tire. And the
owner of the service station he stopped at saw the condition, the
condition of these animals, and
[[Page H6320]]
called the police, thus allowing us to finally enforce the law.
Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill because USDA has not done
their job. In fact, they have been on the other side of the issue
consistently. They surreptitiously overturned Congressional action last
year. Ms. Schakowsky pointed that out earlier. We need to bring an end
to this practice because it says too much about us.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 15 minutes remaining.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I am an original cosponsor of this bill,
along with Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Sweeney. This bill is to prevent the
violent practice of slaughtering horses for human consumption. Why are
we offering it?
If you have grown up with horses, you know why we are offering it.
They are as close to human as any animal you can get. Why are we
offering it? Because there are three foreign-owned slaughter houses,
just three, in the United States where these horses are slaughtered,
various means, jacking them up by their hind legs, slitting their
throats.
Why does this practice continue? So that these slaughter houses can
keep a steady flow of horse meat to the dinner tables and meat markets,
not in the United States, but of Asia and Europe where horse meat is
still eaten. Americans do not even eat horse meat.
The Horse Slaughter Prevention Act before us today, if passed into
law, will simply end this practice once and for all across the entire
United States.
The opponents of this bill have come up with a number of objections,
reasons they think it is a bad idea. First of all, they would have us
believe that this is a first step down a slippery slope. That next will
come cows and then hogs and then chickens and then other animals
consumed by Americans.
But the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act does nothing of the kind, and
it will not lead in that direction, because horses are unique and
distinct. We all know that.
Second, the opponents claim that banning horse slaughter will result
in an overpopulation of horses in this country. Once again, this is not
true. There are currently three slaughter houses in the United States
in two States. In five States, including California, a law banning
horse slaughter has been in effect for 7 years. What has been the
effect? There have been no effects. There have not been animals that
are left derelict. There haven't been animals that are not buried.
There have not been too few euthanasias.
Practically speaking, in all five States where this law is already
the law of the land, there has been no effect whatsoever.
Each year, about 90,000 horses are slaughtered. So there is no real
impact in a country as large as the United States in the disposing of
those 90,000 horses by means other than horse meat slaughtering.
Third and finally, our opponents have touted letters from cattlemen
and chicken farmers and all sorts of livestock raisers who say they
oppose the bill.
We have and we will gladly display to anyone who wants to see it a
seven-page memorandum, single spaced, of supporters all over the
country who know horses, who love horses; they are horse raisers, horse
racers, horse lovers, you name it. Everybody has signed on to this
saying it is time we do something like this.
{time} 1230
Last year, when it appeared that the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act
would never get its day on the House floor, Mr. Sweeney and Mr.
Whitfield and I offered an amendment to the House ag appropriations
bill to ban Federal funding to facilitate horse slaughter for 1 year.
That amendment drew 269 votes in support; 269 Members passed it by a
substantial majority. I hope that today my colleagues will remember the
vote they cast last year and will see fit to end the brutal practice of
killing horses and will vote not only for the bill but against all
amendments because they would only debilitate and defeat the bill.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and thank him for
taking on this battle with others.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter
Prevention Act. I oppose the cruel and senseless slaughter of American
horses for human consumption in the United States or for foreign
markets. I just think we should not be allowing this.
Last year, more than 90,000 American horses were either slaughtered
in one of three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the U.S. or shipped to
Canada or Mexico for slaughter.
Horses have never been raised for human consumption in America. This
slaughter is done for export.
Legislation is necessary because the Department of Agriculture is
blatantly circumventing clear congressional intent on horse slaughter
in last year's fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
This legislation would prohibit the transportation, possession and
sale of horses to be slaughtered for human consumption in the U.S. It
does not remove the rights of owners to do what they want with their
horses.
Under H.R. 503, owners can humanely euthanize sick, dangerous, or old
horses. Horses can continue to be kept by their owners, can be sold to
a new home, or placed in one of the many horse sanctuaries located
across the country.
The way a society treats its animals, particularly horses, speaks to
the core values and priorities of its citizens. Horses are not just
companions and recreational animals. They are a vital part of our
Nation's culture and history.
I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation
and oppose all amendments aimed to weaken it.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), a real rancher,
horse owner and outstanding member of the House Agriculture Committee.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
I have been a farmer and rancher all of my life, still live on the
original family farmstead that my great great grandfather settled back
in 1860. Horses have been a real part of the way we do business on the
Salazar ranch. As a matter of fact, we still use horses to round up
cattle and move them from pasture to pasture.
I know that H.R. 503 is a well-intended act, but if it becomes law,
it will have very poor results.
The act will seriously, in my opinion, compromise horse welfare.
Under this bill, care must be potentially provided for the additional
90,000 horses that are going to be out there annually.
It will eliminate a humane end-of-life option for horse owners and
force them to send their horses out to already overcrowded rescue
centers or sentence them to live out their final years in suffering.
Processing provides a cost-effective alternative to neglect and
abandonment when horse owners are unable to find another buyer. It is
not such a problem out in rural areas, but it is a major problem in
urban areas.
In 2005 alone, it saved owners and rescue facilities an estimated
$220 million in total costs of caring for unwanted horses.
The Animal Welfare council estimated that cumulative annual
maintenance costs of otherwise processed horses since the year 2000
would have exceeded more than $513 million in 2005. It would cost
$1,900 per year to house each unwanted and abandoned horse, not
including veterinary or farrier services. It will cost $127 million in
the first year to properly care for these animals if this legislation
is enacted.
Who will pay for this cost? You will pay for the cost in the end.
These facilities do not receive public money at the moment; but I can
assure you that if these horses become a nuisance, you, the taxpayer,
will end up paying for their care.
H.R. 503 does not specify who will bear the costs of the ban if this
ban is
[[Page H6321]]
implemented. What will happen to the management tools the Bureau of
Land Management has to manage the wildlife of wild horse bans out in
the western United States? If this bill is enacted, none of these
horses who are unwanted, and although BLM does try to auction them off
or to give them to pet owners, what will happen to those horses? What
will happen when I am out riding, rounding up my cattle and my horse
falls into a prairie dog hole and breaks his leg? Will I then not be
able to send him to some rendering facility? What will happen or what
is the next step? Will people take away our right to be able to go out
and hunt elk? Is that the next step?
I know that H.R. 503 is a well-intended act, but it will have very
serious consequences on our agricultural community. I would urge my
colleagues to oppose the ban of horse slaughter and to vote ``no'' on
H.R. 503.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of my colleague and his
sentiments, and I need to make a couple of points because there is a
substantial skewing of the record here.
First of all, in 1989, 350-some-odd thousand horses were slaughtered.
We have that number down to below 90,000. That is 1 percent of the
horse population that is put down every year.
Secondly, the gentleman says that this will preclude an option for
putting down his horse if his horse becomes lame. I would make two
points. One is that 90-plus percent of the horses that are sent to
slaughter facilities are rated by the USDA as being healthy and strong
and fit animals.
So this is not about putting down animals, and if you have that
problem, there still are humane procedures. You can go to a local vet
and have your local vet for $50 to $250 oversee the process of putting
your animal down.
Frankly, this bill does not stop an owner from putting a horse down
themselves by any means.
This bill prohibits the public transportation of that. This bill
prohibits the slaughter for human consumption at these three
facilities.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I have been around horses all of my entire
life. Do you consider the slaughtering of animals such as beef
inhumane?
Mr. SWEENEY. This is not about that. This is about horses which are
in a special place. This is about a practice that is profusely out of
whack with the standards of America.
Reclaiming my time, I want to talk about the slaughter facilities
themselves. These houses do not contribute to this economy. In his
written testimony during the committee hearings on H.R. 503, Dick
Koehler, vice president of Beltex Corp., a slaughter plant in Fort
Worth, Texas, described the horse slaughter industry as a tax-paying
legitimate business. Yet witnesses at that same hearing revealed tax
returns showing that Dallas Crown, Inc., based in Kaufman, Texas, made
$12 million in revenue 1 year and paid only $5 in U.S. taxes.
The U.S. exports 18,000 tons of horse meat, netting $65 million in
2005; and the profits went back to the countries of the owners of those
plants. Two of them are from Belgium. One of them is from France.
There are costs to the local economies. It is a practice that is
abhorrent and that is not supported.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 503; and
like many of my colleagues, I have been around horses all my life. I am
a former horse owner and my father had a farm. The humane vote is to
vote ``yes'' on H.R. 503.
I thank my colleagues, Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Spratt and Ms. Schakowsky,
for their really outstanding leadership and for clarifying the points
that have been so made in this debate.
Over 90,000 horses were brutally slaughtered last year at three
foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the United States, and their meat was
then shipped to countries in Europe and Asia for human consumption.
Americans do not eat horse meat. They love horses. They are cherished
companions. They are sporting animals. They are not food.
If you look at the history of America, horses have played such an
important part in our Nation's development, and I would say they are
probably the most beloved animals native to the United States.
The American people strongly support banning horse slaughter. They
recognize that it is a deplorable practice that needs to end.
Over 70 percent have expressed this opinion in opposition to
slaughtering horses for human consumption. Again, no American would eat
horse meat. This is to be shipped to a foreign country, and they are
slaughtered in a gruesome manner, as my colleague pointed out on the
floor.
While it is technically required that horses be unconscious prior to
slaughter, the method used to render them unconscious is not effective
due to a horse's instinctive flight response to stress. As a result,
the horses are sometimes conscious while being slaughtered. This is
unconscionable.
I call upon my colleagues for a humane vote and to vote ``yes'' on
this bill.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear in a little while that there is
substantial support in the ag community and other places, and I will
grant that there is substantial opposition to this bill, as well as
substantial support, within 500 horse organizations.
But what I find most sad and in a way ironic is that an organization
like the American Veterinary Medical Association opposes this
legislation when employees of a slaughter plant blatantly do not follow
the AVMA procedure for slaughtering a horse.
Again, an important notion to understand is that slaughter is not the
same as humane euthanasia by a qualified veterinarian. Euthanasia,
according to AVMA, is an act of inducing humane death that is
respectful and is painless and as distress free as possible.
Yet we saw in that picture, that was transport, that was not even
slaughter. That was a horse in transport. Horses suffer horribly on the
way to and during slaughter, where they often endure repeated blows to
the head and upper body before being hoisted up for slaughter,
sometimes still conscious. That is not euthanasia.
Slaughter is markedly different than acceptable forms of euthanasia.
The AVMA requires that a captive bolt method must be administered by
trained, skilled and monitored personnel and that the horse must be
adequately restrained. These requirements are typically not met in
equine slaughter plants, thus raising significant welfare concerns.
Let me say something about the plants, too. One of the issues raised
is that you are going to shut these plants down and people are going to
lose their jobs. We are talking about something in the range of 150
employees. To my friends on my side of the aisle who talk all the time
about how we have got to be tough on immigration, I suggest to you that
a substantial number of those workers are not in this country under
legal means. They are low-level laborers. It is the only people they
could find to do this.
I would also inform my colleagues that all three of these facilities,
all three of these facilities operate and slaughter for other means,
other livestock, and that they could simply go to that business. This
is a practice that is not adhered to or supported.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
{time} 1245
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I would point out that the two largest horse associations in the
United States, the American Quarter Horse Association and the American
Paint Horse Association, are opposed to this bill, and they represent
the biggest number of horse owners in the country. So people need to
understand that.
I wondered if Mr. Sweeney would yield on the points he was making. I
wanted to ask him a question.
[[Page H6322]]
You know, you keep talking about the way they are treated as they are
hauled to slaughter. As I understand it, in this bill, there are no
requirements put on so that, if you are hauling these animals to a
rescue facility, there is no regulation or any kind of requirements put
on anybody to haul them to those rescue facilities. So what have you
accomplished?
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SWEENEY. Well, there are requirements for the transport under
USDA. The problem is USDA does not enforce those requirements.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 more
minute.
But, you know, nothing will change under this bill.
Mr. SWEENEY. I would suggest, Mr. Peterson, that people who are
rescuing horses have a different mindset and intent than those who are
slaughtering for human consumption.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I am not sure that is the case, because
you are going to have 90,000 horses, and you are going to have people
rescuing them basically under duress because they are not going to know
what to do with them.
In my part of the world, we already have people letting horses out,
out in the country, just like dogs and cats, because we don't have a
processing facility close enough to us. It is a huge problem.
Mr. SWEENEY. And 20 percent of the horse population, in reporting
data out of California and everywhere else, suggests absolutely the
opposite.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Well, they are hauling them to Texas
because there is a processing facility.
The only point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that some of
these issues they are claiming they are going to solve with this bill
are not going to be solved. They are actually going to create more
problems.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2\1/
4\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the
chairman of the Livestock Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503. This is a bill
that has tremendous shortcomings, will cause major negative disruptions
throughout the horse industry and lacks any strategy of how to deal
with the problems that it will undoubtedly create.
The bill is based on emotion. If you stop to think about what will
happen to these 60,000 to 90,000 horses being diverted from processing
each year, you will realize the bill does not provide a single answer
to truly the problem.
I find it deeply troubling that the sponsors of H.R. 503 care more
about what happens to the animal after it is euthanized than what
happens when it is alive. If these animals are no longer able to be
processed at federally regulated plants, where will these horses go?
Yes, these animals will be alive, but if it is a life of negative
abuse, abandonment and starvation, what good have we served? We want to
make sure all these animals are cared for humanely throughout their
life.
Owning a horse is a privilege that should be taken seriously. Horses
are high maintenance animals that require feed, water, veterinary care
and safekeeping. The care of horses is expensive. The Animal Welfare
Council estimates it costs $2,340 per year per horse. Public animal
rescue facilities and horse sanctuaries across the country are
currently saturated with unwanted horses and in desperate need of
funds. Even the proponents of this bill have acknowledged this fact.
How does adding thousands more horses help this already dismal
situation?
H.R. 503 does not provide a single answer to ensure the proper care
of these animals. Where will these animals go? How will we fund their
care? How do we ensure they are not starved and abandoned? Why should
we burden our local communities with problems created by this bill?
More than 200 reputable horse organizations, animal health
organizations and agricultural organizations oppose this legislation,
and they represent some of the most respected and knowledgeable people
who own and care for horses in the United States. In my home State, the
North Carolina Horse Council, Quarter Horse Association, the North
Carolina Department of Ag and Consumer Services, the North Carolina
Farm Bureau, the North Carolina Pork Council and the North Carolina
Cattlemen's Association all oppose this legislation and the precedent
it would set for other livestock.
If you look at the facts and not the emotional hype, I believe the
choice here is really quite simple. My stand against H.R. 503 is a
stand for the humane treatment of these animals. I urge my colleagues
to do the right things for horses and horse owners. Vote ``no'' on H.R.
503.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished
whip, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman. This is about politics not
policy. The policy, I am going to support. This is about politics. It
is about the election of one Member in a very hotly contested race in
New York.
I hope the American public are tuned in. With all the pressing
critical issues that confront our Nation, what is the one issue in the
one-fifteenth of the session that we have left that we are according
our time to? The Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This is an important
issue that should be considered. I do not mean to make light of the
legislation. But is this the issue that the American people expect
their elected representatives to be considering at this moment?
On Monday, we commemorate the fifth anniversary of the worst
terrorist attack in our Nation's history. 9/11 is a day of remembrance
and resolve, and it is also a time to recognize that we are not as safe
as we should be. Apparently, horses aren't either. But people aren't as
safe as they should be.
Just today, a former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich,
wrote, and I quote, ``Five years have passed since the horrific attack
on our homeland, and still there is one serious undeniable fact we have
yet to confront. We are today,'' said the former Speaker, Newt
Gingrich, ``not where we wanted to be and nowhere near where we need to
be.''
Yet one-fifteenth of the time we have left before the election is
spent on horses. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. This Congress
has failed to enact the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. The nuclear
threat from North Korea and Iran has increased. Afghanistan is
backsliding, and Iraq simmers in a low-grade civil war, yet we are
focused on this act.
Last week, I joined more than 20 of my Democratic colleagues in
visiting New Orleans and the gulf coast, areas devastated by Hurricane
Katrina 1 year ago. We observed incredible courage and optimism on the
part of the citizens there, but we all saw an area that is still a
shell of its former self.
In New Orleans, nearly 60 percent of homes and businesses do not have
electricity. Much of New Orleans lacks a dependable supply of potable
water, and only $44 billion of the $110 billion appropriated for
rebuilding assistance to victims has been spent. Yet what are we doing
today? Focusing on horses.
This bill was defeated 37-3 in committee. The Patient's Bill of
Rights, cosponsored by Mr. Dingell, was supported by the majority of
this House and the majority of the Senate, and it died in conference,
for political reasons. This bill here is for political reasons.
While this body considers this legislation today, the Republican
leadership refuses to allow an up-or-down vote on providing a long
overdue increase for the minimum wage.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, the chairman of the committee, soon to
be, maybe. Who knows. Mr. Goodlatte, I apologize for that.
The Republican leadership refuses to allow an up-or-down vote on the
minimum wage. And that is not about horses; it is about 6.6 million
Americans working every day and living in poverty. I have concern about
these horses, but I have much, much more concern about 6.6 million
Americans who are living in poverty while working 40-hour weeks.
We have still not passed legislation that moves our Nation towards
energy independence, yet we focus on horses.
[[Page H6323]]
Reforms are broken in the immigration system, yet we focus on horses.
We have not addressed the fact that 46 million Americans do not have
health insurance, yet we focus on horses.
We need fixes to the Republicans' flawed prescription drug program
and reforms to our convoluted tax system, yet we focus on horses. I am
concerned about horses, but I am much, much more concerned about the
American people. That is what we ought to be focused on. That's where
we ought to be paying attention.
That is why I call this the ``do less than `do-nothing Congress of
1948.'''
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would say on behalf of this Congress that we did pass
an energy bill. We did pass a prescription drug bill. We did pass a
bill to expedite refinery building in this country. We did pass an
outer continental shelf exploration bill. And we would have had this
bill on the floor 2, 3, 4 years ago if the Ag Committee had been
willing to cooperate with us.
But to talk about this business of horse slaughter, I think the
American people have every right to know what this business is really
all about. It is a secretive, illicit and grossly inhumane business.
Now, you listen to the members of the Ag Committee and the Department
of Agriculture, and they talk about the transportation of these animals
as regulated and that there is no ill will coming to these animals.
I have a picture here of a horse that was transported from
Mississippi to Texas to Beltex on August 10, 2006. Now, if you look, I
will show you that picture, and then I want to show you this picture.
Now, the reason this happened is because a killer buyer by the name of
Robbie Solomon from Belmont, Mississippi, put 17 stallions in one
trailer.
Now, Mr. Salazar was here talking about his knowledge of horses, and
I am sure he is quite knowledgeable, but anyone knows that you do not
put stallions together. And the only way they were able to keep them
from fighting was to beat these animals. This is going on all across
the country because the USDA is not enforcing the transportation
regulations.
And so when we talk about slaughter, we are not talking about the
actual slaughter of the horse per se; we are talking about the horse
theft involved. We are talking about the killer buyers getting animals
any way they can get them. We are talking about them putting them in
trailers like this and transporting horses.
I find it so interesting that the American Association of Equine
Practitioners, the leadership, and the leadership of the American
Quarter Horse Association talk about their concern for these horses.
They are looking out for their welfare, yet they see nothing wrong with
the method of transport, the double-deck trailers being used, where
horses full grown cannot even stand up straight on the upper deck.
Just think, stallions put together. You never do that. And that is
precisely what Mr. Robbie Solomon of Belmont, Mississippi, did. So I
did want to point out exactly what is going on in this transportation
of these animals to slaughter, and this is not something that is
uncommon.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. In Nebraska, we have
a great many horses that are used for roping, cutting horses, riding
horses and quarter horses. Not many racehorses. These horses are
primarily for a function, and when a horse can no longer fulfill that
function, something has to happen to the horse. Now, you can retire the
horse and pay $2,000, $3,000 a year to house it, to feed it and to take
care of it, but some people that own 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 horses simply
cannot afford to do that.
So I have been hearing from a great many horse owners, and these are
people who care about horses, who love horses and who are concerned
about horses, who have working ranches, and they say this is a bill
that they cannot live with because of the cost. So I think we have to
look at that.
I certainly don't tolerate and don't condone any shipment that is, as
has been mentioned, injurious. We don't want to see that. But we have
to have some way, because this will decrease the value of the average
horse about $300 simply because of the burial fees and the extra costs
of taking care of horses.
So this is not a solution to the problem. The people in my area
oppose it, and I would strongly urge we defeat the bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the Dean of the House, the ranking member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, my good friend, John Dingell.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I love the people who are pushing this bill, but it is a bad bill. It
is triumph of emotion over common sense. We have before us a solution,
a poor one, to a nonexistent problem.
We have many things that need to be addressed in this Congress, but
here we are putting on the floor a piece of legislation poorly thought
out, without having had proper hearings or proceedings, over the
opposition of a committee, when we have many other things that need
doing; health care for Americans, minimum wage, a budget deficit of
terrifying proportions, and the appropriations bills and the budget
have not yet been completed. While the Nation is at war, working
families struggle to make ends meet, and government runs record
deficits the leadership has put this curious piece of legislation on
the floor.
The bill would eliminate humane slaughter of horses. If there is a
complaint about how the horses are being slaughtered or transported,
there is a way for this body to address that, and I am sure in good
will this body would in the exercise of its oversight powers do exactly
that.
The bill does not count for the high cost of caring for these
unwanted animals, nor does it consider the impact that this legislation
is going to have on the environment.
{time} 1300
You know, we have a curious situation where we are going to have to
wind up cremating every horse that dies in the country, or we are going
to have to incinerate them. I have no idea how we are going to dispose
of a huge number of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds of horse each time one of
these events happens.
Now, basic care costs $1,800. There is no requirement here that a
person sell or slaughter his horse. The owner of the horse can do what
he wants with it. That makes eminent good sense to me.
But I don't think anyone has thought out the consequences of this
legislation, what is going to happen with regard to the massive number
of horses that are going to have to be incinerated or cremated and the
consequences of that with regard to the environment.
This is a bad piece of legislation. It should be rejected.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois for
allowing me the 3 minutes on this particular issue.
I think much has been said, but I think if we look at it as
legislators, our profession, our duties and our service to our
constituents, what is it that we do? We pass laws that reflect the
standards, the norms and the mores of American society.
It is already acknowledged, and I think even the opponents of this
piece of legislation that I support here today would acknowledge we
have already established a norm and a standard, and that is in this
country we will not destroy a horse for human consumption. That is a
done deal, that is recognized, and it is based on the historical
significance of the horse in our society, which is very unique.
Now, this is the question that I pose: How can you prohibit the human
consumption of a product, that is the law, that is the norm, that is
the standard, that is the American value, without prohibiting the
production of the product? And that is what this piece of legislation
accomplishes. It is not a difficult legislative equation.
[[Page H6324]]
And there will be consequences, but consequences that can be dealt
with responsibly by the horse owner. And I truly believe that. I am
from the State of Texas, and we have a few horses in Texas. My brother
owns horses. Now, does he agree with me on this particular piece of
legislation, because it may prove to be inconvenient and pose some
economic cost to him? I am not really sure. But this is in keeping with
what we have already established, and that is how we treat horses in
our society.
Now, we have individuals that will say this is about property rights.
Members of Congress, please. We pass laws every day that regulate the
manner that we conduct ourselves with pieces of property, personal and
real. We have zoning laws. We have ordinances. And this is just another
aspect of that, in keeping, though, with what has already been
established as societal norms, and that is what we do here today.
People will simply say, but it is not about consumption of horse meat
in the United States, that we are just simply going to cater to the
culinary needs of the French. That is not the point. The point is that
you still have everything that entails the entire process of how you
prepare, how you slaughter the horse for human consumption. Whether it
is domestic or internationally, it is not in keeping with the
established norms and values as reflected in our laws, State and
Federal, when it comes to the treatment of horses.
The bottom line is we have to sometimes tweak existing laws to make
sure that they reflect those mores and that value, and that is what we
are doing here today.
We cannot condone the slaughter of horses for human consumption.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chairman, I would like to address one issue that the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan raised, and we all have great
admiration and respect for the gentleman from Michigan. He raised the
question about how are we going to take care of all these horses that
are not slaughtered when they die and the impact of those animals on
the environment.
I would remind the body that there are 133 million cows in America
today. Every year many of them die out in the fields. Some of them are
picked up by renderers and processed, but many of them are drug to the
back 40 where they are decomposed, eaten by scavengers and whatever.
The same thing would happen to horses that die out in the fields.
In my State of Kentucky, only about 40 percent of the animals that
die in the fields are picked up by renderers. This bill would not
affect what happens to natural death to animals in the field in any way
whatsoever.
I would remind the body that only 1 percent of the entire horse
population in America, which is about 9 million, is being slaughtered.
Less than that. I also would like to reiterate, once again, we have
heard so much about unwanted horses. I would say to you, many of these
horses being slaughtered are not unwanted, there is not anything wrong
with them. Many of them are stolen and obtained by misrepresentation.
So to leave the impression that every horse slaughtered is old,
decrepit, unwanted, is certainly not what the facts show.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that
that is 1 percent of the horses per year, 90,000 or 1 percent of the 9
million per year. The average life expectancy of a horse is over 25
years. So about 25 percent of the horses go through this process in
this country, and we will have a huge problem if we don't resolve that,
if we pass this bill.
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding
and for leading this cause.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 503. H.R. 503, the Horse Protection Act,
would ban the processing of horses for human consumption. There is no
evidence that suggests that products derived from horses pose any food
safety or public health risk. Because processing facilities process
meat intended for interstate shipment, they must be inspected by USDA
for compliance with the Horse Slaughter Act, the Federal Meat
Inspection Act, and other Federal animal health and food safety
regulations.
The people who want this bill passed claim that horses are not raised
for meat. However, there are at least three breeds that are raised for
meat: the Yili, the Altai and the Bashkir, among others, that are
raised for dual purposes.
Every year, 80,000 to 100,000 of these horses are abandoned in the
U.S., and this number is expected to double in just a few years. But
there are no provisions to address disposal or care of the unwanted
100,000 horses.
When horses are euthanized on private lands, it is normally done with
a heavy dose of barbiturates. Once that horse succumbs to the
barbiturates, the carcass becomes an environmental concern. And if the
horse is disposed of on private land, we have to be concerned about the
issues that lead to contamination, human exposure to zoonotic disease
and related problems.
The individuals who support H.R. 503 and argue unwanted horses can be
moved to adoption facilities or resold are selling us short on the
resources. The total take capacity for all these facilities is 6,000
head; 6,000 head. These facilities are already at overcapacity. Where
would the additional 100,000 horses go? I would add that is a
cumulative total of perhaps a 10-year rolling total of 100,000 a year.
It may be 1 million horses. But these horses are eating our cellulose
and costing us ethanol.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I want to address this unwanted horse issue again.
Everyone keeps talking about slaughter as the answer to unwanted
horses. Has anyone ever thought about the responsibility of the
breeders that are breeding these horses?
The one horse industry association that most advocates horse
slaughter is the American Quarter Horse Association. That is because
they are the most prolific breeders in the country. They are
registering 144,000 foals a year, compared to 32,000 thoroughbreds,
12,000 standardbreds.
Has anyone ever asked the question, what is the responsibility of the
breeder? And for them to have the audacity to come to the Congress and
say you have to pay us if you pass this bill to take care of all these
horses that we are breeding every year.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Chairman, I just wanted to say, unless I don't know something
here, I don't believe it is illegal to consume horse meat in the United
States. If you want to shoot your horse and butcher it and eat it, you
can do it. So people need to understand that, number one.
Number two, I am in receipt of a letter here from Ron DeHaven, who is
the administrator of APHIS, and I would just like to make folks aware
of this, that contrary to what has been said, they have enforcement
going on in terms of the transport of horses.
There are 187 cases that have been opened since 2002. They have
issued 69 warnings. Eighty-one cases remain open. Three of those are
being investigated. Seventy-eight are on final review. Twenty-one cases
included stipulations. There have been fines anywhere from several
hundred dollars to $60,000 for violation of humane transport
requirements. One case is currently being adjudicated by an
administrative law judge requesting that the violator submit $85,000 in
penalties.
APHIS says that they take very seriously their responsibility to
ensure safe and humane transport of horses to slaughter. So they have
been trying to enforce this law; and if there is problems going on, you
ought to get a hold of APHIS and do what they should do.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Just to respond to the gentleman from Kentucky, who asks a very good
question about the responsibility of horse owners and horse breeders, I
guess my question to the gentleman is, why doesn't his bill contain any
provisions to prevent the creation of unwanted horses? That is one of
the principal objections that these respected
[[Page H6325]]
national organizations have to this legislation, is that he does not
address that in his bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walter Jones.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Kentucky.
Madam Chairman, I decided I wanted to come to the floor today and not
share my thoughts on this issue, but the thoughts of an American
citizen. This lady lives in Carlinville, Illinois. She wrote me a
letter on Saturday, and I was so impressed with the letter that I
called this lady yesterday, Mrs. Betty Scheldt. I asked permission that
I might read two paragraphs from her letter that I think speaks to this
issue.
First: ``Horses are an integral part of the American culture and I am
extremely distressed over the fact that our horses, icons of our
culture, are being slaughtered in foreign-owned slaughterhouses to
please the palates of wealthy gourmets in Belgium and France. Horse
slaughter and human consumption of horse meat is not and never will be
acceptable in American culture. Americans overwhelmingly agree that
horse slaughter should be banned. Several national voter surveys reveal
that 77 percent to 90 percent of Americans feel that horses in the
United States are not bred, raised or produced as food stock, and as
such should be afforded the same protection from commercial slaughter
as are all other non-food producing animals.
The last paragraph: ``Horses are our companions and partners. They
carry our children in competition at the county 4-H fair, make our
country proud in the Olympic games, win Kentucky Derbys and Triple
Crowns, carried our soldiers into battle and helped our forefathers to
settle this country. They deserve better than ending up served on the
plates of fancy restaurants from Belgium and Paris.''
Madam Chairman, I join my colleagues today who support H.R. 503, and
I hope and pray that this Congress will pass this legislation because
horses are part of the history of this Nation and the West would never
have been settled if it had not been for the horses working with the
American citizens to build America.
September 1, 2006.
Subject: Please vote for H.R. 503 as originally introduced.
Hon. Walter Jones, Jr.
U.S. Representative,
Greenville, NC.
Dear Representative Jones: I am writing to urge you to vote
for H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, as
originally introduced by Representatives John Sweeney (R-NY),
John Spratt (D-SC) and Ed Whitfield (R-KY). This bill would
prohibit permanently the slaughter of horses for human
consumption overseas, as well as the exportation of
horseflesh and live horses intended for slaughter, making
sure that no American horse is slaughtered abroad.
Over the past 20 years, due to ever increasing public
awareness of the trade of horses for human consumption, the
vast majority of plants that slaughter horses are no longer
in operation. However, 3 foreign owned and operated horse
slaughter plants still operate in our country today despite
overwhelming objection by the majority of Americans. The meat
produced in these plants is sent to certain European and
Asian countries where it is considered a delicacy.
Horses are an integral part of the American culture and I
am extremely distressed over the fact that our horses, icons
of our culture, are being slaughtered in foreign-owned
slaughterhouses to please the palates of wealthy gourmets in
Belgium and France. Horse slaughter and human consumption of
horse meat is not, and never will be, acceptable in American
culture. Americans overwhelmingly agree that horse slaughter
should be banned. Several national voter surveys reveal that
77%-94% of Americans feel that horses in the United States
are not bred, raised or produced as food-stock, and as such
should be afforded the same protection from commercial
slaughter as are all other non-food producing animals.
The slaughter process is inhumane: Horses endure repeated
blows to the head with stunning equipment that does not
render the animals unconscious and many horses are still
conscious during the remaining stages of the process. The
transportation of these horses to the slaughter plants is
also cruel and inhumane since they are hauled several
thousand miles without water, food or rest in double-deck
trailers, forcing them to travel in a bent position which can
result in prolonged suffering and death.
Arguments from the AVMA and AAEP defending the ``humanity'
of horse slaughter arc simply ludicrous. To suggest that a
process in which horses endure repeated blows and are often
slaughtered while conscious is somehow humane is not only
absurd but also shows a total disregard towards the welfare
of the animals these two organizations claim to protect.
I strongly disagree with the claims of the horse slaughter
industry that it provides a way to dispose of old and ailing
horses. This is simply not true: According to official data
from the Department of Agriculture, 92.3% of the horses
slaughtered are in good or excellent condition. Pictures of
the slaughterhouses' pens showing healthy, young horses
further corroborate this data.
It is also false that the horse slaughter industry is
rooted on a presumed ``unwanted horse'' problem as the horse
slaughter industry maintains, simply because these plants are
importing thousands of Canadian horses each year in order to
cover the increasing foreign demand of horse meat. If there
are so many unwanted horses in the U.S. as they claim why do
they have to import them from Canada? The truth is that the
``unwanted horse'' theory is a bald-faced lie.
Horse slaughter promotes theft and abuse. After California
banned it in 1998 horse theft dropped by 34% while there were
no reported increase on abuse as the foreign-owned industry
maintains. In addition, there was no documented rise in
Illinois following closure of the state's only horse
slaughter plant in 2002.
Horses are our companions and partners, they carry our
children in competition at the county 4-H fair, make our
country proud in the Olympic games, win Kentucky Derbies and
Triple Crowns, carried our soldiers into battle and helped
our forefathers to settle this country. They deserve better
than ending up served on the plates of fancy restaurants from
Brussels and Paris.
Again, I urge you to vote for H.R. 503 as originally
introduced by Reps. Sweeney, Spratt and Whitfield. I also
please request a response from you stating your position on
this issue. Thank you for your time and consideration of this
letter.
Sincerely,
Betty Scheldt,
Carlinville, IL 62626.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking
member of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Rahall).
{time} 1315
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for
yielding me the time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the American Horse
Slaughter Prevention Act. The House has gone on the record three times
now in strong opposition to horse slaughter.
I hope my colleagues will maintain that record, maintain their
consistency and give overwhelming support of this bill. It is a sad
state of affairs when we have to fight to prevent the slaughter of more
than 90,000 American horses a year.
Horses are an integral part of the tapestry of this country, an
American icon. The horse is a symbol, a promise of possibility. Most of
all, the horse is a companion, as we just heard in the letter of Mr.
Jones's constituent in North Carolina. The horse is tied to the spirit
of the American frontier, the homesteaders in covered horse-drawn
wagons, a cowboy and the wild mustangs. All symbols of America.
The horse is a promise of possibility. How often Americans have sat
in anticipation, watching the pageantry of thoroughbreds racing for the
roses in the annual Kentucky Derby, while fully hoping for the triumph
of some deserving underdog, perchance to see a rare Triple Crown
winner, a truly American story.
But most importantly, the horse is a companion for many Americans in
a treasured childhood memory. Little boys and girls for generations
have ridden a carousel pony dreaming that some day they will have a
real horse to ride, a companion.
Horses are a part of our identity and our heritage, and in America
they are not for human consumption. But, unfortunately, that is the
fate of many of these animals.
Today, three foreign-owned slaughter houses operate in the U.S.,
serving an overseas market in horse meat. Thousands more horses are
shipped annually out of the U.S., destined for other foreign slaughter
houses. Horse slaughter is an export-driven market. Americans do not
want it, and we should not be facilitating it.
The horse slaughter industry and its allies are going to extreme
lengths to prevent this ghastly, but lucrative, practice.
I hope that the House will once again pass this much-needed
legislation and not see the Department of Agriculture circumvent the
intent of Congress.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to
[[Page H6326]]
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the House
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank Mr. Peterson for allowing me to speak
today.
To set the record straight, I love horses. I own a horse. In fact, my
horse, Skychief Poco, and I won the 1997 SandHills Rodeo and quarter
horse show team penning championship. I have got the wherewithal to let
him live out his days in the pasture behind my house. But if you
notice, I have used the possessive pronoun ``my'' each time I describe
my horse.
At its core, this isn't about people who love horses. This isn't
about the American icon. This isn't about the kid who rides a carousel
and wants to own a pony. This is about personal property rights. I have
personal property that is a horse. He is not a pet necessarily. He is
never going to be eaten, but that is not the issue here.
The title of the bill on the other side makes constant reference to
the Slaughter Prevention Act or Slaughter Protection Act. Nothing in
the bill has anything to do with the actual slaughter of the horses,
the euthanasia of the horse, not the methods. Because if we are talking
about methods that need to do it better, let's do that.
But this is an attack on the personal property rights of all horse
owners out there in America. At its core, this is also about what
happens to the carcass of a dead horse, whether it is an affront to the
icon of America to process that horse carcass into food or whether to
chop that horse up and put it in a landfill, or chop that horse up and
bury it in your back yard. However you treat the carcass of that horse,
that is really what this is about.
This strips out the personal value, the personal property value of
every horse owner that chooses to dispose of their horses in various
ways and that we all should take great interest in how that is done.
That is not what this bill does. This strips simply strips out my
right, my personal property rights, to own that horse and dispose of
him at the point when I want to.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is an attack on
personal property rights without due process and is unfortunate.
One other piece of this bill is that, which is added toward the end
of it, is that if you have a horse that is sore, and you are at a
competition or at an event, the Secretary of Agriculture is allowed to
come take that horse from you. So I would urge my colleagues to vote
against this bill. It is ill conceived and should not pass.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
(Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chairman, I have been around and worked with
horses all my life. I think I have as much appreciation and admiration
for these creatures as anyone in this body; but I am very much opposed
to this bill, first, because, contrary to, I am sure, the intentions of
this authors, this bill will result in more abuse, more neglect and
more inhumane treatment of horses.
I would just say that those who are so certain that horses are better
off to die peacefully out in the field have never come across an old
horse out in a field or a pasture who cannot get up and stand on its
legs and continues to beat its head against the ground in an effort to
get leverage to stand back up. Such people have never come across an
older horse down in the pasture or field and begins to be eaten by
predators and can do nothing about it because he can't get back on his
feet.
The idea that it is more humane to let all horses die peacefully in a
field, rather than dealt with in a regulated, inspected manner, is just
wrong. So the bottom line is, this bill results in more neglect and
more abuse, more mistreatment of horses, as owners cannot afford to
take care of them, or they are left to, quote, die peacefully in a
field.
Secondly, it is a tremendous blow to private property rights. If
anyone thinks there is any reason for the Congress to stop with a
regulation of how we govern horses and not go right ahead and say what
owners ought to do to their pigs and their cattle or their dogs and
their cats or their fish in the aquarium, then you haven't realized the
consequences of this bill. It is a bad idea. It should be rejected.
Madam Chairman, I have been around and worked with horses all of my
life, and I think that I have as much appreciation and respect for
these magnificent creations of God as anyone in this body. And I am
strongly opposed to this bill.
The motives behind this proposal are, I am sure, honorable. But the
consequences of it in the real world will be so detrimental to what the
authors say they hope to achieve, that I wonder if some are
intentionally turning a blind eye to them.
If old horses cannot be dealt with humanely, many of them will be
left to suffer. Those who are so certain that all horses are better off
being allowed to die of old age have never seen a horse that has been
unable to get up and continues to beat its head against the ground for
leverage to try to stand. How is that better for the animal?
If older horses cannot be sold here, they will be sold in Mexico,
without our standards and inspections. How is that better for the
animal?
The bottom line is that more horses will starve, more horses will be
abused or neglected, more horses will suffer unnecessarily if this bill
were to become law.
In addition, the precedent this bill would set would be deeply
disturbing to the basic American principle of private property rights.
If the Federal Government can dictate what individuals may and may not
do with personal property--to whom it may or may not be sold--the
fundamental right to own property will suffer a terrible blow.
Of course, there is no reason for the Federal legislation to stop
with horses. Federal law could regulate treatment of cattle and pigs,
dogs and cats, or fish in the aquarium.
Criminal abuse of animals is a crime prosecuted by State and local
authorities. A Federal law restricting the ability to sell private
property based on some people's misguided idea of how that property
should be treated is a dangerous thing, and this bill should be
rejected.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WHITFIELD. A parliamentary inquiry. Could you explain the
remaining time that is available.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). Yes. The gentleman from Kentucky
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 4 minutes remaining, and
the gentlewoman from Illinois has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize the majority leader's
designee, Mr. Goodlatte, for the closing speech.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that
dealt with this issue, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague. As the gentleman
from Virginia pointed out, we had a hearing on July 25, 2006, on this
same issue. My colleagues, I think it was a balanced hearing. I think
Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Sweeney were both there. Mr. Sweeney testified,
also Chairman Goodlatte testified. I think it brought out the pros and
cons of this.
Whatever is proposed, however, must have a full understanding of the
ultimate effects on the American horse population and their caregivers,
because arguments presented on both sides seem to paint a pretty bleak,
bleak picture for a large number of horses. But I am concerned that
H.R. 503 does not solve the problem of unwanted horses.
Unfortunately, it provides no solution to the unfortunate reality of
the life of these horses. Horses are a beloved part of our American
heritage and deserve more humane approaches at the end of their lives.
I think we all agree.
But this bill, H.R. 503, does not solve the problem. In fact, as many
point out, it is a property rights issue; and we should be concerned
ultimately where these horses will finally graze and who will pay for
it.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Farr).
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Madam Chairman and Members, I rise in support of this bill.
I have been listening to this debate all
[[Page H6327]]
day. I don't think most people have read it. The bill deals with the
slaughter for humane consumption. Now, I represent California, the most
populous State in the Union, which has the most horses.
Guess what, this has been the law in California for many years, and
all of these naysayers and predictors of bad happening just doesn't
happen in California. Change this debate; change this debate.
What if we were up here talking about slaughtering cats and dogs for
profit for human consumption? You wouldn't have people up here saying,
well, the cats and dogs population will ruin everything; it will stop
the world. We take care. The slaughterers don't buy sick horses,
injured horses. They buy fresh horses, and they buy them for human
consumption. This bill says you can't do that.
Now this is the day and age in America when we ought to be not
allowing people to for profit buy horses merely to slaughter them for
human consumption. That is wrong. This bill is right.
I urge a rejection of the amendment and a passage of the bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the bill as well,
H.R. 503, the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. As a cosponsor of this
bill, I believe this legislation is necessary to prevent the inhumane
disposal of beautiful animals.
Horses hold a special place in this country. They were vital during
our settlement, allowing us to travel great distances quickly and
providing the necessary strength for farming. Today, we are able to
appreciate their grace and speed in a variety of different venues from
racing to recreational horses. They are all part of America.
The fact, though, is important to underscore. We don't allow horse
meat to be eaten in this country. To allow the shipment of meat
overseas is a bit hypocritical. While some may have expressed concern
about the cost of disposing of sick horses, the fact is, according to
the USDA, 90 percent of horses arriving in slaughter are in good
condition.
There are many alternatives other than horse slaughtering, and among
those options are horse welfare associations and equine sanctuaries.
The bill responds to a strong American concern about the treatment of
horses, in addition to prohibiting the trade and transfer of live
horses intended for human consumption
H.R. 503 lessens the USDA's workload by reducing the number of
animals requiring inspection.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
As has been said very ably by the Dean of the House, Mr. Dingell,
this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There have been a
lot of assertions made out here that I think are a little bit suspect.
But one of the things that I want to point out, the previous speaker,
Mr. Farr, my good friend from California, claims that they have done
this, and there are no problems, well, there was a peer-reviewed
article in the Journal of Agribusiness which highlights the lack of
enforcement in California of their law, anecdotal evidence of increased
horse abandonment, malnutrition, greater numbers of thin and crippled
horses at auction in California. So this is a peer-reviewed article
that refutes that assertion that was made by Mr. Farr.
This is a bill that on the merits is a bad bill. It was defeated in
the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 37-3 because those of us on the
Agriculture Committee represent rural America, represent the areas that
have horses and use horses every day. The American Quarter Horse
Association, the American Paint Horse Association, the biggest horse
associations in the country oppose this bill.
There are a lot of good reasons; but the main reason, in my opinion,
is that this is just absolutely the wrong way to do business in the
House of Representatives. As has been pointed out by Mr. Hoyer and by
others, we have many more priorities that we ought to be working on in
this Congress other than this bill. That is, you know, obvious.
But, you know, it really offends me to take the work of the
committee, and this can be any issue, and overturn it and put a bill on
the floor that is completely opposed to what the committee decided. I
think it is absolutely the wrong way to run this institution and
probably is the best reason for us not to pass this legislation.
I just have to say one other thing. I just was up in Hallock,
Minnesota, the other day, and one of the main things that we ought to
be doing in this Congress, that we haven't done, that we have been
trying to do since last December, is get disaster legislation passed to
help those people that got wiped out in 2005 and to help the people
that have been wiped out here in 2006. That would be a much better use
of the Agriculture Committee's time on the floor of the House of
Representatives than dealing with this bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and send this bill where it
belongs, that is, back to the committee.
{time} 1330
Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the
committee.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I want to point out there is a book called, ``Alternatives to Auction
and Slaughter: A Guide for Equine Owners (A Better Way),'' that lists
all kinds of places that welcome animals that are at the end of their
lives and are unwanted.
Quite frankly, I find really disingenuous those on the other side who
oppose this legislation who say those of us who support ending horse
slaughter are actually going to be hurting horses more, that we somehow
don't get it. I think that is very disrespectful to the well over 500
organizations that support this bill, including the American Horse
Defense Fund, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, the Animal Protection Institute, the Humane Society of the
United States. Clearly, I could go on and on. These are organizations
that are in business for the sole purpose of making sure that animals
are treated humanely. They are not mistaken in supporting this
legislation.
Those of us who truly care about the welfare of horses should support
this legislation.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I would say this: The State of Texas tried to close these
slaughter houses down for many years. Officials there did. A lawsuit
was filed by the slaughter houses. Remember, they are foreign-owned,
Belgian, Dutch and French. In that lawsuit, the slaughter houses owned
by the foreign companies won that lawsuit because the Federal judge
said that this is an interstate commerce issue; and there is Federal
preemption involved; and if you are going to shut down slaughter houses
in operation in interstate commerce, then the U.S. Congress has to act.
Now this bill came before the Energy and Commerce Committee because
of the lack of action on the Ag Committee for many years. They never
wanted it to see the light of day.
I would urge Members to vote for H.R. 503. As I have said before, the
unwanted horse argument is not a real argument because horses being
slaughtered are not unwanted. To think that we would have the
responsibility of reimbursing owners who are overbreeding, who have the
responsibility to take care of their own horses, they make it appear
that the government has that responsibility. Owners have their own
responsibility.
Private property rights, this bill protects private property rights.
Because of the number of horses being stolen, we are protecting those
private property rights.
This bill allows an owner, a rancher or farmer who owns a horse to do
whatever he wants to with the horse. He can shoot it or slaughter it
and eat it himself. We simply are shutting down an illicit, secretive
business, and that is what this bill is all about.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this is an emotionally
charged issue. But passion when left unchecked can have negative
consequences. That
[[Page H6328]]
is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today.
I have asked my colleagues to consider the consequences of this
legislation, as did I and the 36 bipartisan members of the House
Committee on Agriculture. And the gentleman wonders why they have never
dealt with it; the committee voted 37-3 to report this bill unfavorably
with the recommendation that it not pass the House. And I thank the
gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership on his side of the aisle
and for yielding me some of his time.
Also, more than 200 reputable national and State organizations,
including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American
Association of Equine Practitioners, the horse doctors who polled their
members, 80 percent were opposed to this legislation. Also opposed are
the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Quarter Horse
Association, the National Association of Counties, and every State
horse council in the country that has taken a stand on this issue,
including New York, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Virginia, North
Carolina, have all opposed this legislation.
The consequences of this legislation are far-reaching and stand to
jeopardize the welfare of America's horse population and will
potentially place a significant financial burden on horse owners across
the Nation.
Instead of solving problems, H.R. 503 creates problems. It provides
no directive as to what will happen to the 90,000 unwanted horses
annually processed in slaughter facilities, and it increases the
probability of unwanted horses becoming victims of neglect, starvation
and abandonment. That is not just my opinion; that is the opinion of
the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American
Association of Equine Practitioners.
H.R. 503 provides no funding for alternatives and no instructions for
the regulation of rescue or shelter facilities to ensure the welfare of
these unwanted and unusable horses. The influx of unwanted horses would
flood the already inadequate, overburdened, unregulated rescue-and-
adoption facilities. There are roughly 6,000 slots in America's horse
shelters and rescue facilities, 6,000. The majority of these shelters
are operated by individuals who are able to take one, maybe two, horses
at a time. These shelters and rescue facilities cannot possibility
accommodate many, many times, 20, 30 times that number of horses that
would be created by this bill.
It limits horse owners' availability of choice of how to dispose of
their animals and infringes on owners' private property rights.
Horse owners have a variety of options when seeking to get rid of an
unusable or unwanted horse, including rescue or retirement facilities,
private sale, donation, euthanasia and processing facilities. Depending
on the individual needs of the owner and the horse, some options may be
more feasible than others. By eliminating this option, we are dictating
what horse owners can and cannot do with their own private property. We
must respect the right of responsible owners to choose the option best
suited for their unique circumstances.
It mandates costs on private citizens. If the bill were enacted as
written and the processing of horses for human consumption was no
longer a legal option for owners to dispose of unwanted horses,
estimates place the additional number of unwanted horses at 272,000
within the first 6 years.
Today we take care of 20,000 wild horses in corrals out west that
cost us $50 million a year. Imagine having 10, 15, 20 times as many
horses to take care of who are in that same situation. The cost to
private horse owners of maintaining these horses has been
conservatively estimated to be between $3 and $4 billion. By
eliminating the option of horse processing facilities, thereby limiting
the option of owners to dispose of their property, Congress would be
forcing a $3 to $4 billion burden on private citizens and maybe perhaps
to State and local governments, one of the reasons why the National
Association of Counties is concerned about protecting private property
rights.
The bottom line, H.R. 503 does not solve problems; it creates
problems. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, I would like to make this very clear: if
you believe in the humane treatment of animals, this bill takes us a
step backwards. If you believe in preserving a balanced and natural
ecosystem, this bill moves us in the wrong direction. If you believe in
personal property rights, this bill represents an outright assault on
that uniquely American ideal.
There are many who will come before the House today and will say that
Americans are thoughtlessly slaughtering young, strong horses--symbols
of the American West--and that there can be no good reason for this
slaughter. I am here today to tell you that this is not the case.
In my home State of Wyoming, we proudly display a bucking bronco as a
symbol of our Western heritage. In fact, one of the first memories of
my life is sitting on the back of a horse. I love horses as much as
anyone here, and just like the proponents of this bill, I do not want
to see these animals suffer. But I rise today to say that if enacted,
this legislation would create more suffering for both horse and human.
By opposing this bill, we are not striking out at symbols of the
American West. In fact, we are making a responsible herd management
decision that protects horses, humans, and the ecosystem. Many of these
horses are old, ill, starving due to overpopulation, or they have
otherwise ceased in their proper function.
But you don't need to take my word for it. As many have already
stated, over 200 reputable horse organizations, animal health
organizations, and agricultural organizations have voiced their strong
opposition to this bill.
Most importantly, I have heard loud and clearly from folks who know
and love horses more than anyone in this chamber--Wyoming's ranchers.
These hard working ranching families breed their own horses, they help
deliver them at birth, they train them, they feed and raise them, and
they care for them when they are sick. Every day of their lives they
are interacting with the horses that they love. Wyoming's ranchers
depend on horses for their livelihood. They know all there is to know
about caring for a horse, because in the harsh seasons on the high
plains and in the Rocky Mountains, they have to know in order to
survive.
These folks know their animals like they know themselves. And yet,
today, we are considering a bill that will tie their hands, preventing
them from making a humane choice for their horses. Today we are
considering a bill that will sentence innumerable horses to a life of
starvation and suffering. Today, we are considering passing a bill that
will have untold disastrous effects on the ecosystem.
I sincerely admire the motivation of those in favor of this bill
today. If only their love for these regal creatures was enough to care
for the needs of the 90,000 unwanted horses this bill will create each
year, then there would be no need for this debate. If only their zeal
to defend these animals could somehow control the overpopulated wild
horse herds roaming the plains of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah and
Colorado, then we would have no need for humane population control. But
the honest truth, Madam Chairman, is that this bill offers no
solutions. We cannot absorb 90,000 horses a year. If we pass this bill,
we will be putting rhetoric above the realities of ranch life; and we
will be elevating a mistaken idea about Western symbols above the
livelihood of Wyoming's ranchers. I cannot support such a measure.
I urge my colleagues to put their emotions aside, look past the
surface, and into the real policy problems this bill will create. Vote
``no'' on H.R. 503.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I strongly oppose
the slaughter of horses for human consumption.
For this reason I am a cosponsor of H.R. 503. This bill prohibits the
shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing,
purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be
slaughtered for human consumption.
An overwhelming majority of my constituents from the Dallas, Texas,
area are opposed to horse slaughter, and my vote reflects their will.
My office phone has been ringing off the hook with constituents
opposed to horse slaughter. I have received more than 500 letters in
the past few days. All are opposed to horse slaughter.
Horses are a symbol of American freedoms. They are a part of our
history, our culture, and they deserve better.
Three slaughterhouses remain in the United States, and unfortunately
two of them are in Texas. These meat factories kill about 100,000
American horses per year, sending the meat to countries overseas for
fine dining.
Madam Chairman, I vigorously oppose this gruesome practice. And I
don't agree with the argument that shutting down these slaughterhouses
will hurt the local economies or be inhumane for horses.
[[Page H6329]]
In my opinion, this bill protects American horses from being raised--
and slaughtered--for human consumption.
I support H.R. 503 and urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, this week the census bureau released a
report showing that for the first time since 1998, the number of
uninsured children increased. Of the 8.3 million children without
health insurance, minority children constitute a disproportionate
share. The latest census figures also show that a record 46.6 Americans
lack health insurance. With crucial issues facing the country such as
the health care crisis, a broken immigration system, shortfalls in
homeland security, and a stagnant minimum wage, I am baffled that the
Republican leadership would spend precious time on horse slaughter
legislation.
I do not want to minimize the importance of banning inhumane
slaughter of horses for purposes of human consumption overseas. In
fact, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter
Prevention Act and support clean passage of that legislation. However,
it is distressing that with only approximately 15 legislative days
before the election, Republicans are ignoring the priorities of the
American people.
I am troubled that the 109th Congress will be remembered in history
as a ``do-nothing'' Congress. According to the Library of Congress, the
House of Representatives in 2006 is on track to be in session for the
fewest number of days since 1948. When the Congress has been in
session, Republicans have pushed divisive and unproductive legislation
such as constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and flag
burning.
The time is long overdue to address the people's business. Several
months ago, both the House and Senate passed immigration and boarder
security bills. Instead of working out an agreement on illegal
immigration, Republicans scheduled new field hearings in swing
districts. With more talk and less action, the Republican led Congress
and White House have failed to gain control over the border. They have
failed to conduct workplace enforcement of immigration laws and have
thus failed to protect American workers from declining low wages.
Republican inaction on homeland security is even more disconcerting.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission has given this Administration and the
rubberstamp Republican congressional leaders poor grades for failing to
implement the Commission's recommendations. We must take immediate
steps to secure our borders, strengthen security around sensitive
infrastructure, and give our first responders the necessary resources
to protect the country.
Republican leadership has failed to improve the American people's
economic security. As CEO compensation has soared, real family income
is down since 2001. Since 1997, Republicans have repeatedly rejected a
minimum wage increase for 6.6 million of the hardest working Americans.
We must provide a livable wage so families can afford to make ends
meet.
With the American people paying our salaries, we in the Congress have
a duty to solve their problems. It is about time the Republican-led
Congress earned its paycheck.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I cannot support this bill in
its present form.
I understand and appreciate the views of its proponents, many of them
in Colorado, who are distressed about the fact that three
slaughterhouses in this country are in the business of preparing horse
flesh for human consumption--primarily in other countries.
The bill's supporters do not think this is appropriate, and that
Congress should exercise its authority over interstate commerce in
order to put an end to this business. That is what this bill is
intended to do.
I can understand the discomfort many Americans have about consumption
of horse flesh, although of course it has been and remains an accepted
practice in some places.
But emotional concerns cannot be the only guiding force in
legislation regarding the way livestock is managed, and prohibiting
slaughter of horses for human consumption--the main market for horse
flesh at this time--would have unintended consequences this legislation
fails to address.
The hearings held by the Agriculture Committee made it clear that
there the current horse sanctuaries do not have the capacity to care
for the additional unwanted horses--which otherwise would be handled by
slaughterhouses that would result from the bill's enactment. That was
one reason the committee, on a bipartisan basis reported the
legislation unfavorably.
I voted for an amendment that would have delayed implementation of
the bill until the Agriculture Department determined that adequate
sanctuaries were ready. Unfortunately, that amendment was not adopted.
Similarly, state and local governments--including the Colorado
Department of Agriculture and the Commissioners of Adams County--are
concerned that shutting off the slaughterhouse outlet will lead to an
increased number of unwanted horses being abandoned and left to be
dealt with by local authorities. I am attaching letters from the
Colorado Commissioner on Agriculture and Adams County Commissioners who
oppose this legislation. I voted for an amendment to provide federal
reimbursement to local governments faced with such a problem. However,
that amendment also was rejected.
Because of these problems, I cannot vote for the bill as it stands.
Finally, I must note that with the nation at war in Iraq and
Afghanistan, everyday Americans struggling with a mediocre economy and
high energy costs, there are more pressing issues Congress needs to
address than this one.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I rise today in honor of our country's
beloved horses. It is my hope that Congress will pass H.R. 503
unamended, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This bill will
end horse slaughter for human consumption in the United States and the
cruel practices associated with this inhumane industry.
When horses are sold to slaughter they are often transported in
overcrowded trucks, deprived of food and water, exposed to the elements
and made to stand in their own waste. The slaughter bound horse can be
sick or injured but forced to suffer a lack of appropriate veterinary
care. The stress that horses are subjected to, both during
transportation and at the slaughterhouse, triggers horses' natural
flight response. At the slaughterhouse a horse can be ineffectively
stunned before dismemberment, meaning that a horse may remain conscious
while being bound and then elevated by one leg prior to having its
throat slit.
H.R. 503 encourages responsible horse ownership. For horse owners,
who are no longer able or willing to care for a horse, H.R. 503 finds
appropriate alternatives to slaughter that may range from finding a new
home for the horse to humane euthanasia preformed by a licensed
veterinarian.
Documentation from the three remaining equine slaughterhouses in the
United States show that America's wild horses have been among their
victims. Additional victims include stolen, as well as healthy horses.
This legislation will stop the sale of wild, stolen or healthy horses
to slaughter houses for human consumption at a profit.
The word humane is defined as being marked by compassion, sympathy
and consideration for animals. The question we must ask ourselves is if
subjecting horses to this kind of circumstance is indeed humane? Is
horse slaughter marked by compassion, sympathy and consideration for
the animal? The only realistic conclusion is no.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 503 and to oppose all amendments
designed to weaken this important bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have joined 202 of my
colleagues in cosponsoring the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act
and I rise today in support of its passage. It is time to put a stop to
a business that has been allowed to go on for far too long.
Many Americans have made their stance on this issue clear: a recent
poll shows that almost 7 percent of Americans are in favor of banning
horse slaughter. The slaughtering process is one that is shockingly
inhumane--when transported to slaughtering houses, horses are crammed
into trucks and may go unfed for as many as 28 hours. Animals that
survive this ordeal often die by the captive bolt, an instrument meant
to cause immediate trauma to the brain but is often used improperly,
resulting in slow and painful deaths.
Those who oppose this law believe H.R. 503 will result in an
overpopulation of horses. Yet the Department of Agriculture has found
that 5,000 horses have been imported to slaughter plants since August
2004. As the Humane Society of the United States rightly observes,
there would be no reason to import horses if we have an overpopulation.
Opponents of this bill have also warned that horses who would
otherwise be slaughtered would not receive adequate care once they are
transferred to alternate homes or rescue facilities. But horse rescue
groups are required to abide by state and local animal welfare laws.
California banned horse slaughter in 1998 and there has been no
documented rise in cruelty and neglect cases. Similarly, there was no
increase in brutality toward horses following the closing of Illinois'
only slaughter plant in 2002.
There is no reason why the inhumane treatment of these animals should
continue, particularly when our horses are being slaughtered solely for
the purpose of pleasing foreign diners. I urge all my colleagues to
join me in support of this bill.
Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support in H.R. 503,
which would prohibit the slaughtering of horses for human consumption.
Last year more than 90,000 American horses were slaughtered in this
country by three foreign-owned plants. Horse meat is
[[Page H6330]]
not eaten in the United States, but it has been exported to overseas
markets, such as France, Belgium, Japan and Italy. Animals deserve to
be treated humanely, and I do not support this industry.
This Congress made its opposition to horse slaughter clear in the
Agriculture Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006. I supported an
amendment introduced by Representative Sweeney and Representative
Whitfield that would have essentially tied the hands of the horse
slaughter industry. Unfortunately the language approved by both the
House and Senate, which had the clear intention of ending this
industry, was altered in conference and allowed the slaughtering of
horses to continue.
H.R. 503 would permanently shut down this inhumane practice. This
legislation has wide bipartisan support in the House as well as
extensive backing from the animal welfare community. I want to
specifically thank Representative Sweeney and Representative Whitfield
for their hard work and leadership on this important issue.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 503
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SHIPPING, TRANSPORTING, MOVING,
DELIVERING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING, PURCHASING,
SELLING, OR DONATION OF HORSES AND OTHER
EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
(a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Horse Protection Act (15
U.S.C. 1821) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and (6), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated,
the following new paragraph:
``(1) The term `human consumption' means ingestion by
people as a source of food.''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3), as so redesignated,
the following new paragraph:
``(4) The term `slaughter' means the killing of one or more
horses or other equines with the intent to sell or trade the
flesh for human consumption.''.
(b) Findings.--Section 3 of the Horse Protection Act (15
U.S.C. 1822) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as
paragraphs (6) through (10), respectively;
(2) by adding before paragraph (6), as so redesignated, the
following new paragraphs:
``(1) horses and other equines play a vital role in the
collective experience of the United States and deserve
protection and compassion;
``(2) horses and other equines are domestic animals that
are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport;
``(3) unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and
other equines are not raised for the purpose of being
slaughtered for human consumption;
``(4) individuals selling horses or other equines at
auctions are seldom aware that the animals may be bought for
the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption; and
``(5) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the
Department of Agriculture has found that horses and other
equines cannot be safely and humanely transported in double
deck trailers;''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (8), as so redesignated, and
inserting the following new paragraph:
``(8) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore
horses in intrastate commerce, and the shipping,
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing,
purchasing, selling, or donation in intrastate commerce of
horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human
consumption, adversely affect and burden interstate and
foreign commerce;''.
(c) Prohibition.--Section 5 of the Horse Protection Act (15
U.S.C. 1824) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (11) as
paragraphs (9) through (12), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph:
``(8) As a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and
practicability of imposing such a prohibition nation-wide,
the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving,
possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of any horse or
other equine in the States of Kentucky or New York to be
slaughtered for human consumption, unless the equine--
``(A) is owned or controlled by a State or local government
or owned by an individual who purchased the equine from a
State or local government;
``(B) will be slaughtered at a facility operating before
the date of the enactment of this paragraph; or
``(C) will be slaughtered for human consumption for
charitable or humanitarian purposes.''.
(d) Authority to Detain.--Section 6(e) of the Horse
Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking the first sentence of paragraph (1);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively; and
(3) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated,
the following new paragraph:
``(1) The Secretary may detain for examination, testing, or
the taking of evidence--
``(A) any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or
horse sale or auction which is sore or which the Secretary
has probable cause to believe is sore; and
``(B) any horse or other equine which the Secretary has
probable cause to believe is being shipped, transported,
moved, delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold, or
donated in violation of section 5(8).''.
(e) Reimbursement.--Section 11 of the Horse Protection Act
(15 U.S.C. 1830) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 11. REIMBURSEMENT OF OWNERS FOR LOSS OF VALUE OF
HORSES.
``The Secretary shall compensate the owner of an equine who
disposes of such equine due to the prohibition under section
5(8). The Secretary shall compensate such owner for the total
amount of--
``(1) the loss in value of the equine due to such
prohibition; and
``(2) the costs incurred in the disposal of such equine.''.
(f) Responsibility for Unwanted Horses.--The Horse
Protection Act is further amended by inserting after section
11 (15 U.S.C. 1830), as amended by subsection (e), the
following new section:
``SEC. 11A. RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNWANTED HORSES.
``The Secretary shall assume responsibility for any equine
that is unwanted by an owner.''.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 12 of the
Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1831) is amended by striking
``$500,000'' nad inserting ``$5,000,000''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order
except those printed in House Report 109-642. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The Chair has been notified that amendments No. 1 and 2 will not be
offered.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 109-642.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Goodlatte:
In the paragraph (8) of section 5 of the Horse Protection
Act, which is being added by subsection (c)(2) of section 1
of the bill, strike ``consumption.'' and insert the
following: ``consumption, except that this prohibition shall
not take effect until 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary of Agriculture certifies to Congress that
sufficient sanctuaries exist in the United States to care for
any horses that may be unwanted as a result of this
prohibition.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 981, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
We have discussed many problems that the Sweeney-Whitfield bill will
create with not a single solution in sight. While it is not possible to
address all of those problems, we must address the fate of the horses
affected by this bill.
I am joined by my ranking member, Mr. Peterson, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the
gentleman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), and the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) in offering an amendment to address this
concern.
The amendment would very simply say that until the Secretary of
Agriculture can certify that sufficient sanctuary space is available to
accommodate the unwanted horses created by this bill, the drastic step
of a Federal mandate will be delayed.
Everyone debating this issue today is dedicated to the best care
possible for horses. We profoundly disagree on how to achieve that
laudable goal. The cosponsors of this amendment believe it would be a
tragedy to take the dramatic step of closing off a humane method of
disposal of animals that the owners can no longer care for only to see
them abandoned or killed wholesale at greater cost to their owners.
If we are to take this drastic step, we should at least ensure that
the horses for whom it is being done continue to live out their lives
in humane circumstances.
[[Page H6331]]
Nothing in this amendment would prevent the operation of H.R. 503 as
long as there was assurance that a humane living alternative to the
current system exists. It is impossible for me to believe that the
supporters of H.R. 503 intend to replace the death of horses that they
decry with abandonment or wholesale death at the hands of their owners.
The proponents of this bill have assured us there will be no flood of
unwanted horses with no place to go as a result of this bill. If this
is true, and reputable organizations like the American Veterinary
Medical Association and the American Association of Equine
Practitioners strongly dispute that, but if it is true, our amendment
will be an easy procedural step to meet.
If, however, the Association of Equine Practitioners and major horse-
owning groups who oppose H.R. 503 are correct that hundreds of
thousands of unwanted horses with no place to go would be created in
just a few years, this amendment can prevent a catastrophe for horses
in this country.
I ask my colleagues to join us in passing this amendment that
provides a solution for at least one of the problems created by this
bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) to respond.
Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. Let's be
very clear, all of these amendments have one intended purpose, and that
is to destroy the bill. So if you are in favor of the ban of horse
slaughter for human consumption, you need to vote against all of the
amendments.
This number, this establishment of an arbitrary number, is false. It
will not be obtained because there are so many other options for horse
owners other than horse sanctuary, but let's understand the facts.
The current horse population is estimated at 9 million. As has been
said, each year, roughly 900,000 horses die. About 90,000, or 1
percent, are actually slaughtered. Furthermore, in 1989, the U.S.
slaughtered over 342 horses. In 2005, they slaughtered 90,000. Since
then, the United States slaughtered approximately 200,000 fewer horses.
So 90,000 horses can be easily absorbed into the population. And not
all of these horses will need to be absorbed into rescue and sanctuary
populations. Horses will die or become sick or dangerous to their
owners. These horses will need to be replaced. These horses will become
pets or workhorses or show horses.
Both the Bureau of Land Management and hundreds of private
organizations and agencies provide adoption programs for people to
replace these horses by adopting new ones. Additionally, thousands of
these horses are humanely euthanized each year.
Madam Chairman, this amendment, this proposal, is simply meant to
ensure that this bill is never enacted. We should vote it down, and we
should vote it down very strongly.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of this amendment. This bill displaces 90,000
horses a year, 90,000. In spite of what my good friend Mr. Sweeney
says, that is a lot of horses. Currently the horse facilities are
already full. They can only take approximately 6,000 horses a year.
What do we do, Mr. Sweeney, with those other 84,000 horses? This bill
should not pass until the Secretary of Agriculture can certify to this
Congress that there is enough space in these rescue facilities to
accommodate all of these unwanted horses that have no place to go, no
funds to care for them and no humane end-of-life option left for them.
So I support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Talking about an amendment to create a problem that is not there,
this is a perfect example of that. We have all of these organizations
around the country who are voluntarily spending their time and money to
provide a safe haven for horses, and this amendment basically is a
killer amendment to defeat H.R. 503.
{time} 1345
I would point out once again that each year the number of horses that
have been slaughtered has been going down. We have gone from 300,000
down to 90,000. There is no evidence that society has had any problem
in absorbing these horses. And I would also remind the gentleman many
of these horses are stolen; so they are not unwanted horses. There is a
need for them. So we know for a fact that the only purpose of any of
these amendments is to make this bill ineffective, to kill this bill.
I am delighted that we are on the floor and have an opportunity to
debate this, and I would urge every Member to oppose this amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining
on each side and who has the right to close.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I will respond to the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from
New York, who called this a poison pill. This is no such thing
whatsoever. They say there is no problem with unwanted horses. Then
there will be no problem getting a certification that there is
sufficient horse sanctuary facilities around the country to take care
of them. I strongly dispute that.
I think the gentleman from New York and I, while we may disagree on
numbers, can agree that 90,000 is 10 percent of 900,000, not 1 percent.
But whatever that is, that is a substantial number of unwanted horses.
And, remember, the average life expectancy of a horse is 25 years.
Many of these horses have many years of life expectancy left in them;
so they are going to accumulate over a period of years. In fact, the
American Veterinary Medical Association says over 6 years they will
grow to 272,000 in number. That is far, far more than the capacity of
all the horse sanctuaries around the country that exist today. And
there is no sign of their growing rapidly to meet this need because
they cannot even meet the current need to take care of the unwanted
horses that exist in this country right now as we speak.
So I would urge my colleagues to support this very good amendment
that will cure a very serious flaw in this legislation, and then we
will have the opportunity to see who is correct about how many unwanted
horses we are going to have in this country. Are the experts, the
American Veterinary Medical Association, the horse doctors, the Horse
Owners Associations around the country, who strongly support this
amendment, correct, or are they correct?
I think this is a fair amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to
adopt it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I must say I am shocked that the gentleman would want to get the
government involved in this kind of an issue. These are private
property rights people who are out there voluntarily providing their
property, their money to take care of these unwanted horses.
And one of the reasons we opposed this amendment, you talk about
sufficient horse sanctuaries. We know who would be defining
``sufficient.'' The Department of Agriculture, who must work with your
committee to get anything that they want on the farm bill or anything
else; so you would be dictating what is sufficient, and we know that
there would never be enough sanctuaries sufficient to meet your
demands.
So I would say once again we do not have to speculate about unwanted
horses in the future. We know for a fact that unwanted horses is not a
problem, as we have gone from 300,000 to 90,000 a year. No one has
complained about it. No study has shown it. UC Davis in their study in
California indicated that there have not been any additional increases
of unwanted horses.
So I would urge every Member to oppose this amendment, which is
designed to defeat this bill.
[[Page H6332]]
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, the additional amendments that have
been made in order under my name or my designee we do not intend to
bring up.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 109-642.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. King of Iowa
In the paragraph (8) of section 5 of the Horse Protection
Act, which is being added by subsection (c)(2) of section 1
of the bill, strike ``consumption.'' and insert the
following: ``consumption, unless the horse or other equine
will be slaughtered for human consumption by Native Americans
or persons of cultures who have traditionally consumed the
meat of horses or other equines, as determined by the
Secretary.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 981, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield)
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I am offering this amendment today
that would allow a cultural exemption for Native Americans and people
from cultures that consume equine meat.
Specifically, my amendment would permit equine to be shipped,
transported, moved, delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold,
all of the list that is in the bill, Madam Chairman, by Native
Americans or people from cultures who eat equine meat.
Horses have played, and continue to play, an important role in Native
American culture. It is particularly true for the tribes of the Great
Northern Plains, including the Great Sioux Nation. Many tribal members
raise and sell horses. In addition, the Apache people and the Pueblo
people from the Southwest have consumed horse meat. They were very
skilled on horseback, but they valued and cherished the horse as food
as well.
The Native American cultures are not the only people to eat or raise
horses for meat. The people from the cultures of Japan, Belgium,
France, Austria, Quebec, Chile, Germany, Iceland, Kazakhstan, including
also the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Italy, all eat horse
meat today and all have recipes today.
People in support of this bill have a romantic view of the horse
because it helped build America, and in their mind it is not in our
culture to eat the horse for that reason. But they fail to understand
that the oxen, bovine, was also a great assistance to us and maybe even
a greater assistance in building America; but we do not have an
aversion to beef, Madam Chairman.
So for these reasons, I would ask support for this cultural exemption
amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) in opposition.
Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Chairman, there are two giant loopholes created
here, and I will submit for the Record statements by a number of Indian
tribes, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association, the Inter-
Tribal Council of Nevada, and the National Congress of American
Indians, in opposition to this amendment.
Great Plains
Tribal Chairman's Association,
Eagle Butte, SD, September 6, 2006.
Resolution of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association
Whereas, the Great Plains (formerly Aberdeen Area) Tribal
Chairman's Association (GPTCA) is composed of the elected
Chairs and Presidents of the sovereign Indian Tribes and
Nations recognized by Treaties with the United States that
are within the Great Plains Region of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs; and
Whereas, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association was
formed to promote the common interests of the sovereign
Tribes and Nations and their members of the Great Plains
Region; and
Whereas, the United States has obligated itself both
through Treaties entered into with the sovereign Tribes and
Nations of the Great Plains Region and through its own
federal statutes, the Snyder Act of 1921 as amended, the
Indian Self-Determination Act of 1976 as amended, and the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 as amended; and
Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains have strong
spiritual, cultural, and historical ties to wild horses; and
Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains are disheartened
and alarmed by the new language in Appropriations Bill H.R.
4818 that would allow the slaughter of these sacred animals;
and
Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains are concerned that
wild horses are fast disappearing and that soon there will
not be sufficient numbers to sustain healthy populations; and
Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains recognize wild
horses as one of the last living symbols that represent our
ancestral past; and
Whereas, the wild horses have no one to speak for them and
the Tribes of the Great Plains are compelled to step forward
on behalf of the last remaining wild horses in the United
States; and: Now, therefore be it
Resolved; That the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's
Association opposes the slaughter of wild horses and supports
adoption of wild horses with the federal government waiving
the adoption fee and providing funds for transportation in
order to prevent their slaughter; and: Now, therefore be it
further
Resolved; That the Great Plains Tribes support and
encourage the reintroduction and reinstitution of protective
legislation in the 109th United States Congress to prevent
wild horses and burros from being slaughtered and maintain a
viable number of animals on the public lands; and: Now, be it
finally
Resolved; The Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association
call upon other Tribes and Indian Nations to join with us in
all efforts to find solutions for the preservation of wild
horses.
____
National Congress of American Indians Resolution
Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of
American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine
blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in
order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the
inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights
secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United
States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are
entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United
States, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding
of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and
otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the
Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the following
resolution; and
Whereas, the National Congress. of American Indians (NCAI)
was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest
national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native
tribal governments; and
Whereas, the NCAI recognizes that many of the Tribes have
strong spiritual, cultural, and historic ties to wild horses;
and
Whereas, the Tribes oral history remembers wild horses from
ancient times and concurs that wild horses evolved on the
North American continent for eons of time; and
Whereas, the NCAI acknowledges wild horses as one of the
last living symbols that represent our ancestral past when
people and animals were free to live and roam in harmony with
Mother Earth; and
Whereas, the Tribes are disheartened and alarmed by the
passage of the Burn's amendment to PL 92-195 that allows for
the slaughter of these sacred animals; and
Whereas, the Tribes are concerned that wild horses are fast
disappearing and that soon there will not be sufficient
numbers to sustain healthy populations; and
Whereas, the wild horses have no one to speak for them and
the Tribes of the NCAI are compelled to step forward on
behalf of the last remaining wild horses in the United
States; and Now therefore be it
Resolved, That the NCAI opposes the slaughter of wild
horses and supports the relocation of wild horses to Tribal
lands with the Department of the Interior waiving the
adoption fee and not charging more than $1.00 per animal and
providing transportation of the animals at no charge to the
accepting Tribes; and Now therefore be it
Resolved, That the Tribes of the NCAI support and encourage
the reintroduction and reinstitution of protective
legislation in the 109th United States Congress to prevent
wild horses and burros from being slaughtered and to maintain
a viable number of animals on public lands; and Now be it
finally
Resolved, That the NCAI Tribes call upon other Tribes and
Indian Nations to join us in all efforts to find solutions
for the preservation of wild horses.
[[Page H6333]]
____
Inter-Tribal
Council of Nevada, Inc.
Reno, NV, September 6, 2006.
Resolution No. 05-ITCN-02
Whereas, the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, Inc., is
organized and operates in accordance with its Constitution
and By-Laws, amended in November 1974; and
Whereas, the purposes of Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada,
Inc. (ITCN), are stated in its Constitution, Preamble; and
Whereas, the Executive Board, a body comprised of the
twenty-seven (27) elected representatives of the member
tribes in the State of Nevada and whose charter is ratified
by these same tribes; and
Whereas, the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada has a
continuing interest in the health, education and well-being
of their Indian people; and
Whereas, the Nevada tribes are disheartened and alarmed by
the new language in Appropriations Bill H.R. 4818 that would
allow the slaughter of these sacred animals; Now therefore be
it
Resolved, That the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada opposes
the slaughter of wild horses and supports adoption of wild
horses with the federal government waiving the adoption fee
and providing funds for transportation in order to prevent
their slaughter; and Be it further
Resolved, That the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada supports
and encourages the reintroduction and reinstitution of
protective legislation in the 109th United States Congress to
prevent wild horses and burros from being slaughtered and
utilized for food consumption and maintain a viable number of
animals on the public lands: Now be it finally
Resolved, That the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada call upon
other Tribes and Indian Nations to join with us in all
efforts to find solutions for the preservation of wild
horses.
Madam Chairman, the two loopholes are simply this: first, it would
encourage the slaughter facilities to simply relocate to reservations
and simply export the meat from there. This would allow the practice of
slaughter to continue.
Secondly, the amendment gives ``persons of cultures who have
traditionally consumed the meat of horses'' an exemption. It is not
defined in the bill, Madam Chairman. These persons of cultures are not
specified. The amendment offered, I understand, has given us some
definition, saying essentially this bill would say the French, the
Belgians, whomever else may continue this practice simply because it is
part of their culture. It is not defined. And, therefore, I think it is
inappropriate to have it in the bill. It is a poison pill for this
bill, and I strongly oppose it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, in response to the gentleman from
New York, I would point out that I have a letter here from the United
Sioux Tribes of South Dakota that I will introduce into the Record. And
in this letter it says: ``Horses have played, and continue to play, an
important role in the Indian culture. That is particularly true for
Tribes of the Great Northern Plains.''
And it says: ``Many tribal members raise and sell horses.'' This is
currently, today. ``Some of these horses are used for food and
exported. It is inconceivable to think the Congress might extinguish
our property rights and lessen our income even more.''
And I would point out to the gentleman from New York that we have in
this amendment language that says it would be determined by the
Secretary as to which cultural exemptions. So it is not simply a
blanket exemption. I did not list the Irish in that, and maybe I am
remiss in that. But I do not intend to build a record here of all of
the cultures that have traditionally eaten horse meat, but there are
many of them that do. They do so today. They have recipes today. And
this is something that infringes upon people's property rights and
their cultural rights. And if we are going to say this to the Native
American people that we are going to pull these assets out from
underneath you and you can't do with a horse what you have done for
hundreds of years, I think that is a message that we are not going to
want to send across America.
United Sioux Tribes
of South Dakota,
Pierre, SD, August 22, 2006.
Hon. Stephanie Herseth,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Attention: Ryan Stroschein & Phil Assmus
Dear Stephanie: We greatly appreciate your opposition to
H.R. 503. This bill would, in short, prohibit the marketing
of our horses to slaughter.
Horses have played, and continue to play, an important role
in the Indian culture. That is particularly true for Tribes
of the Northern Great Plains, including the Great Sioux
Nation. The United States has taken our land and if this bill
passes you will be taking our property without compensation.
Many tribal members raise and sell horses. Some of these
horses are used for food and exported. It is inconceivable to
think the Congress might extinguish our property rights and
lessen our income even more. We urge you to ask your
colleagues to follow your lead and oppose H.R. 503. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Clarence W. Skye,
Executive Director.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
I would also submit for the Record a letter that we have from Chief
Arvol of the Lakota Nation, and he wrote a very long letter in
opposition to this amendment. He says: ``I am writing to ask for your
support in co-sponsoring the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act
and for our tribe.''
Dear Representative: My name is Chief Arvol Looking Horse
of the Lakota, Dakota, Nakota Nation. I am also known as
``Sung Wakan'' (Horse Man). My position with my People is the
19th Generation Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf
Bundle. I am the spiritual leader for our Nation.
It has been recorded in ancient petroglyphs and in our oral
stories that the horse nation was around our people long
before the Spaniards brought the other relative of the horse
nation to this land. These ancient horses were much smaller
in size and not so much in numbers, to a point of extinction.
With this ancient Bundle, almost 2,000 years old, existed a
horse ceremony acknowledging the horse nation in respect to
their wise and gentle spirit, as they offered a gift of
healing for our own human spirit. My work has involved many
efforts in bringing awareness to the importance to all life
upon Mother Earth, including Mother Earth herself so that all
life may live in Peace. I was raised with the understanding
that all forms of life have their own meaning of importance
and should not be taken for granted. To ignore and not to try
to learn this precious truth of all living beings to live in
Peace with us as humans of power and decisions, will affect
the lives of our own children in their health of body mind
and spirit. We need to teach all children to look at all life
as sacred.
The Horse Nation is an important spirit being. The Nation
deserves the protection and awareness of what we humans can
offer. They have saved, assisted, and given of themselves for
all humans throughout history. Whether it was being ridden in
battles, or in traveling, and most recently discovered by
therapists through friendship, they can give healing to our
troubled spirits. The Native Nations always understood these
gifts and that was why we had our horse dance ceremony.
This awareness of the horse's gifts to humans has
transformed into a strong respect. This awareness has been
gathering People across the country to protect this fine
spirit from a very negative attack on their health and
existence, by unconscious disrespectful humans in the name of
greed. A horse can feel impending trauma in their
environment. Yet, horses trust humans and so are being led to
slaughter.
This is not a way of respecting life that children need to
learn, as we adults having positions as role models and
leaders in our communities. This energy, as we understand
these actions to be, will indeed backfire, if people do not
educate themselves about the importance of the different
spiritual roles of all life forms. Some animal nations,
indeed, give themselves for food. They actually know their
purpose in the human's food chain, as long as humans
understand this with respect. We should understand the Horse
Nation has earned the right to live in Peace for what they
have contributed to all our lives throughout history.
I am writing to ask for your support in cosponsoring the
American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. The AHSPA (H.R. 857)
has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by
Representative John Sweeney (R-NY) who is chair of the
Congressional Horse Caucus and Congressman John Spratt (D-
SC). A similar bill will soon be before the U.S. Senate.
Despite the passage of the Wild-Free Roaming Wild Horses
and Burros Act of 1971 which was enacted to protect the wild
horse from slaughter, hundreds, perhaps thousands, continue
to be slaughtered each year. The Bureau of Land Management
removed too many wild horses from their ranges resulting in
ongoing sales to the slaughterhouses. If you wish to learn
more about these activities, please contact Chris Heyde of
the Society for Animal Protective Legislation.
In a Sacred Hoop of life, where there is no ending and no
beginning!
Thank you for your attention to this effort.
Mitakuye Oyasin (All my relations),
Chief Arvol Looking Horse,
19th Generation Keeper of
the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe.
Madam Chairman, the purpose of H.R. 503 has never been to dictate to
other cultures what they can and cannot eat. The purpose of H.R. 503 is
simply to prohibit the French, the Belgians, the Dutch from offering
slaughterhouses in America, taking our
[[Page H6334]]
horses, many of which are stolen, obtained by misrepresentation, and
shipping the meat to France, Belgium, and Japan.
So this amendment would do one thing. It would make the bill
ineffective. It would defeat the bill in its entirety. And so I would
urge the Members to oppose this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Chairman, in this position that we are in today, to be
objective in our perspective about how we deal with this issue, I don't
know that there is a precedent in America that we have told an entire
country no matter what your culture, no matter what your beliefs, no
matter what your traditions, we do not want them here in this country.
There are many other elements of other cultures that this civilization
would be more healthy without, and yet there is not a single piece of
legislation before this body that would define those components of
another culture and rip them out and say, in our best judgment we think
you ought to quit doing these things.
We accept all beliefs in America. That is part of who we are. Freedom
of speech, religion, press, all of our cultural composition comes with
all immigrants into this country and with the Native Americans too. And
this amendment says to the Native Americans specifically and other
cultures inclusively, if certified by the Secretary, we are going to
accept your beliefs. We are going to accept your traditions. It is part
of who we are as America to blend all those cultures and those
civilizations together and come out with this robust nature of our
great American culture, and that is what this amendment is about. It is
about protecting our traditional values.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I very much thank the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.
I oppose this amendment because it is not about Native Americans. It
is about creating one more loophole. And I oppose the other amendments
because they would undermine the intent of this bill.
We cannot be a Nation or a society that reduces everything to dollars
and cents, that commoditizes everything. When you see an eagle take
wing and soar above the clouds, that is not a commodity. It is a source
of inspiration. When you see a horse galloping gracefully across the
plains, that is not a commodity. That is a source of inspiration.
Horses have been part of the strength of this country for 400 years.
We depended upon the horse. We explored this continent. Our commerce
was heavily dependent upon the horse. So many major battles where we
prevailed were on horses.
Look at our monuments. Look at the monument in front of the Capitol.
It is a horse. And when the horse has one leg up, it means that that
person was wounded in battle. But there has been an intrinsic
relationship.
Everything cannot be reduced to economics. We need to be inspired by
some things, and these amendments would gut a bill that says there is
no reason to be slaughtering horses. Three major slaughterhouses owned
by foreign nations. Americans don't want to consume meat. Listen to the
mayor of the city in Texas. It has ruined her economy. It is a stench.
No one wants it. This is not about economics. This is about doing the
right thing. And we have been tied to the horse, the eagle. These
symbols of American strength, of American greatness, are sources of
inspiration.
My very good friend Mr. Whitfield understands what this is really
about. This is about preserving a symbol. We cannot allow the kind of
slaughtering that takes place. More than 100,000 horses. Imagine. And
the fact is they are slaughtering the healthy, fatter horses that have
been well taken care of. They do not want the infirm, the old, the lame
horses. That is not who they want to slaughter. So many of these
arguments have been false arguments.
{time} 1400
This amendment is doing the right thing. The Department of
Agriculture circumvented the right thing that we have already passed. I
support Mr. Whitfield. Let's pass this amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, does he have the right to close or do
I have the right to close?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from Kentucky has
the right to close.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Madam Chair, I would reiterate that this amendment is about the
cultural exemption to horse slaughter and consumption for human
purposes. And this is something that has gone on in this country for
hundreds of years.
Since the Spaniards brought the horses here, there have been horses
consumed for human consumption. It has been part of the plan, part of
the breeding, part of the raising, part of the feeding and part of the
strategy.
In fact, as I stand here today, this date here in September is almost
very close to the date that, 200 years ago, Lewis and Clark returned,
back down the Missouri River. It was in September of 1806. They bought
horses from the Native Americans out west for the purposes of taking
those horses as pack horses up into the mountains. They knew they would
not need those horses when they got to the end of the line. And they
bought those horses. Part of their strategy when they left St. Louis
was, buy horses in that region and when you are finished working them,
eat them. Louis and Clark ate horses. All of these ethnicities and
countries that I have named all eat horses.
I do not think there is an ethnicity that has been exempt from having
horses in their diet, but particularly Native Americans who, the Great
Plains Native Americans, the Sioux Nation, and I represent Sioux
County, and I represent two reservations in my district that I have had
for over 10 years now, or almost 10 years now; all of those cultures
are rooted in this. We need to provide a cultural exemption, Madam
Chairman. If we send this message off to Native Americans, in
particular, that we would not even let the Secretary of Agriculture
designate an exemption for Native Americans no matter how long their
tradition is, that will be an insult to Native Americans, an insult to
multiculturalism in America. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this bill certainly does not
prevent individual owners from slaughtering a horse and eating the
horse if they want to. I think that this amendment is unnecessary. It
would defeat the purpose of the bill. All the correspondence we have
had with Indian tribes indicates that they do not eat horse meat.
Horses have not been a part of the food chain in America. I would
urge the defeat of the amendment and passage of H.R. 503.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment in
my capacity as the Ranking Member of the Resources Committee which has
legislative jurisdiction over Indian Affairs.
This amendment is an insult to Indian Country. It suggests that
Native Americans consume horse flesh. And in doing so, it is derisive
of their culture and their society.
The fact of the matter is that Indians do not eat horse flesh, and
the three horse slaughter operations in this country do not sell horse
flesh to Indians.
The meat of slaughtered horses is all exported by these
slaughterhouses to foreign markets.
Indeed, I have before me resolution after resolution from Indian
Country opposing the slaughter of horses, including from the National
Congress of American Indians.
But to be clear, there is another purpose behind this amendment,
because it seeks to also allow horses to be slaughtered for the
consumption of people from cultures that eat equine meat. As a general
matter.
The fact of the matter is that all of the meat from American
slaughtered horses is consumed in European or Asian countries by people
who traditionally eat horse flesh.
Adoption of this amendment would gut the pending legislation. It
would render it null and void.
[[Page H6335]]
My colleagues, do not be fooled, do not be lulled into complacency by
the attempt of this amendment to garner sympathy for Native Americans,
when no such sympathy is required.
A vote for this amendment is the same as a vote against final passage
of H.R. 503.
I urge the defeat of the pending amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be
postponed.
Announcement By the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. King of Iowa.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote in this series.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 229, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 25, as follows
[Roll No. 431]
AYES--177
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Cardoza
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Ford
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Honda
Hulshof
Jenkins
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
NOES--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crenshaw
Crowley
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Dreier
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hayworth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Obey
NOT VOTING--25
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Cummings
Doyle
Evans
Gallegly
Green (WI)
Harris
Istook
Johnson, Sam
McKinney
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Nadler
Nunes
Nussle
Oxley
Rangel
Sanchez, Linda T.
Strickland
Towns
Watt
Young (AK)
{time} 1432
Mrs. BIGGERT and Messrs. WYNN, PRICE of Georgia and CLEAVER changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. McHUGH, FORD, OSBORNE, KUHL of New York, Ms. GINNY BROWN-
WAITE of Florida, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. GOODE, and Mr. AKIN changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 431, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149,
noes 256, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 432]
AYES--149
Akin
Baca
Baker
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cardoza
Carter
Chocola
Cleaver
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
[[Page H6336]]
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Etheridge
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Honda
Hulshof
Jenkins
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
NOES--256
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hayworth
Hensarling
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Obey
NOT VOTING--26
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Doyle
Evans
Gallegly
Gohmert
Green (WI)
Harris
Istook
Johnson, Sam
McKinney
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Nadler
Nunes
Nussle
Oxley
Pelosi
Rangel
Sanchez, Linda T.
Strickland
Towns
Watt
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
{time} 1440
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina and Mr. McINTYRE changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 432, the King of Iowa
amendment, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Thomas was allowed to speak out of order.)
Moment of Silence in Memory of Former Member of the House of
Representatives, Bob Mathias
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Costa, Mr. Nunes and
myself, I would like to advise the House that this past week an
individual passed away, a former Member of the House of
Representatives.
Some of you didn't have the privilege of knowing him in person, but
all of you knew of him. Bob Mathias as a 17-year-old high school
student went to London and came home with a gold medal in the
decathlon. Four years later, he went to Helsinki and came home with a
gold medal in the decathlon. Bob Mathias was a member of this House
from 1966 to 1974.
Bob Mathias thought of himself as an ordinary person. Could we
please, in recognition of an extraordinary human being, offer a moment
of silence?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members will rise and observe a moment of
silence.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rehberg) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 503) to
amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting,
moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or
donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human
consumption, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 981,
he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of H.R. 503 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the motion to instruct on H.R. 5122, and the motion to
permit closed conference meetings on H.R. 5122.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 263,
noes 146, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 433]
AYES--263
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hinchey
Hobson
Holt
[[Page H6337]]
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--146
Akin
Baker
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Cardoza
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Ford
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hulshof
Jenkins
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Lucas
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Norwood
Oberstar
Osborne
Otter
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Obey
NOT VOTING--22
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Doyle
Evans
Gallegly
Green (WI)
Harris
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Lewis (CA)
McKinney
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Nadler
Nunes
Nussle
Oxley
Rangel
Sanchez, Linda T.
Strickland
Towns
Young (AK)
{time} 1501
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that, because I was taking my
children to their first day of school, I missed one vote on September
7, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 981
(Providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 503 to amend the
Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving,
delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of
horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption.).
____________________