[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 113 (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1705-E1706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                AMERICAN HORSE SLAUGHTER PREVENTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JEB HENSARLING

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 7, 2006

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, sometimes in the House of 
Representatives, we debate and vote on emotional issues. H.R. 503 is 
certainly one of those issues, and I understand that those who support 
it hold strong opinions. Having grown up working on a farm and both 
owning and riding a horse, I do not relish the idea of them being 
processed for meat. It is something I personally do not care to do.
  But this bill is not about whether we are a Nation of horse lovers. 
It is a bill about whether we are a Nation of freedom lovers. We are 
presented with a simple question of freedom, namely: will we grant the 
Federal Government the power to tell livestock owners and family 
farmers what they can do with their livestock?
  Freedom in America often means having to tolerate actions to which we 
are personally opposed. To protect our freedoms we must first respect 
our neighbor's freedoms. For instance, I personally abhor smoking and 
wish every tobacco company in the country would find something else to 
do or cease to exist. But I will not support legislation outlawing the 
production and marketing of tobacco products, and I will not support 
legislation outlawing the use of tobacco products as long as such use 
does not infringe on my rights or those of my fellow citizens. I would 
vigorously fight efforts on this floor to regulate them out of business 
or prohibit them from operating in the United States. I believe there 
is an extremely high standard that must be met before we restrict the 
historic freedoms of our fellow citizens. This bill does not even come 
close to meeting that test.
  Those in favor of this bill make a number of arguments as to why we 
must ban the processing of horses. Though on the surface some of these 
arguments may be compelling, noticeably absent from any of them is a 
scientific, health, or safety argument. In fact, the primary reason 
that proponents of H.R. 503 offer is that we should not process horses 
simply because, well, they are horses. Clearly, this argument is 
anything but scientific, and I suspect the cattle in America may be 
upset with the prejudice.
  Some supporters of this bill argue that we must give special 
protection to the horse because of its prominent place in the heritage 
of the American West. Well, do not cattle have an even greater place in 
the heritage of the American West? Yet we use that animal to protect 
our feet with shoes and nourish us with beef. How is the horse 
different? Also, I note that those who we celebrate in the history of 
the West were known as cowboys, not horseboys. Again, how is the horse 
different? I further note the lobster has a prominent place in the 
heritage and history of Maine, but I doubt that people of that state 
would argue that we should stop harvesting it commercially because of 
its legacy.
  Proponents of H.R. 503 will try to convince us that owners who sell 
their horses in auctions unknowingly sell them to representatives of 
the processing facilities, with no knowledge that the horse would be 
processed. Common sense tells me that if these sellers don't want their 
horses sold for processing, they would not sell them at high bidder 
auctions. But, if this is indeed a serious problem, Congress could 
simply pass legislation requiring that horse auctions make all sellers 
aware that their animals could potentially be bought for processing. 
Simple disclosure laws will render that argument moot.
  Some will claim that horse processing needs to be banned because the 
horses suffer during transport and the slaughter process and others 
will claim that horse processing encourages horse thievery. The former 
is not based in fact. With respect to the latter, just because cattle 
rustling has been around since the birth of the Republic does not mean 
we should outlaw the processing of cattle. The same is true of horses. 
Current federal laws require that horses must be transported and 
processed humanely, just like cattle. Both of these arguments raise the 
issue of enforcement. Thus, the solution is to enforce current federal 
law, not pass a new, draconian one.
  While proponents of H.R. 503 have many arguments about why this 
process needs to be banned, they remain silent about the unintended 
consequences of this bill. I believe chief among those unintended 
consequences is that horse owners will not have a humane option to 
dispose of a horse that is either unwanted or unable to be cared for. 
In 2005, around 90,000 horses were processed in the U.S. If there was 
another viable option for these horses, clearly they would not have 
been sent to the processing facility. This is particularly true for a 
number of struggling family farmers. If this bill were to become law, 
it would mean that when a working horse is at the end of its useful 
life, it will turn into a liability instead of an asset for the family 
farmer. No one should come to this floor bemoaning

[[Page E1706]]

the plight of the family farmer and vote for this bill.
  Another unintended consequence is the precedent that we set by 
prohibiting the processing of livestock for any compelling reason other 
than we don't think it should be processed. This is a slippery slope 
issue. As a Congressman who represents a district where--in some 
counties--the cattle overwhelmingly outnumber the people and more 
importantly provide a living for many of my constituents, I am 
particularly fearful that one day a similar movement will make the 
argument that cattle are no longer appropriate for processing for human 
consumption. While it may seem far fetched, with passage of H.R. 503, 
we will have set a precedent that it is permissible for Congress to ban 
the processing of livestock for non-scientific and non-health reasons, 
providing those who wish to ban the processing of cattle a legal leg to 
stand on with either Congress or the Courts.
  However, my opposition to H.R. 503 does not mean that I am not 
mindful of the concerns of those who live near a horse processing 
plant. In fact, I am extremely mindful of these people because some of 
them are my constituents, as I have the privilege and honor of 
representing the people of the City of Kaufman in Congress, which is 
home to one of the three horse processing plants. I believe that most 
of my constituents in Kaufman who are in favor of H.R. 503 are in 
favor, not so much because they believe Congress should criminalize 
horse processing, but because it means a plant in their backyard that 
they do not like will be closed. Many believe it is a public nuisance 
and a strain on the city's infrastructure. I certainly understand those 
reasons for supporting H.R. 503 more than those offered by Members who 
do not have one of these plants in their district. However, those 
reasons fall under the purview of local government, not the federal 
government.

  That is why I am respectful of the decision made by the City of 
Kaufman and its zoning commission to order the plant closed due to it 
being a public health hazard. However, I do not believe that Congress 
should be exercising its authority and infringing upon freedom by 
passing H.R. 503, simply because of the City of Kaufman's bad 
experience with the horse processing plant. There might be a community 
out there that would welcome a horse processing plant and the jobs it 
could bring, even with the potential negative aspects associated with 
such a facility. Passing H.R. 503 would take the decision as to whether 
or not to allow a horse processing facility away from local, elected 
officials, and keep a local community from welcoming a plant and its 
jobs.
  There is no doubt that a horse is a wonderful animal. For those who 
do not wish to process a horse, no one is forcing them to do so. In the 
end, I believe that it is more important to protect the freedom of 
livestock owners to humanely decide the fate of their livestock than it 
is to surrender to emotion and ban the processing of horses. This is 
America. We should love horses but we should love freedom even more.

                          ____________________