[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7368-H7374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




U.S. SENATOR JOSEPH D. TYDINGS MEMORIAL PREVENT ALL SORING TACTICS ACT 
                                OF 2019

  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 693) to amend the Horse Protection Act to designate 
additional unlawful acts under the Act, strengthen penalties for 
violations of the Act, improve Department of Agriculture enforcement of 
the Act, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 693

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``U.S. Senator Joseph D. 
     Tydings Memorial Prevent All Soring Tactics Act of 2019'' or 
     the ``PAST Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASED ENFORCEMENT UNDER HORSE PROTECTION ACT.

       (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), (4), and (5), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(1)(A) The term `action device' means any boot, collar, 
     chain, roller, or other device that encircles or is placed 
     upon the lower extremity of the leg of a horse in such a 
     manner that it can--
       ``(i) rotate around the leg or slide up and down the leg, 
     so as to cause friction; or
       ``(ii) strike the hoof, coronet band, fetlock joint, or 
     pastern of the horse.
       ``(B) Such term does not include soft rubber or soft 
     leather bell boots or quarter boots that are used as 
     protective devices.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6)(A) The term `participate' means engaging in any 
     activity with respect to a horse show, horse exhibition, or 
     horse sale or auction, including--
       ``(i) transporting or arranging for the transportation of a 
     horse to or from a horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
     sale or auction;
       ``(ii) personally giving instructions to an exhibitor; or
       ``(iii) being knowingly present in a warm-up area, 
     inspection area, or other area at a horse show, horse 
     exhibition, or horse sale or auction that spectators are not 
     permitted to enter.
       ``(B) Such term does not include spectating.''.
       (b) Findings.--Section 3 of the Horse Protection Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1822) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by inserting ``and soring horses for such purposes'' 
     after ``horses in intrastate commerce''; and
       (B) by inserting ``in many ways, including by creating 
     unfair competition, by deceiving the spectating public and 
     horse buyers, and by negatively impacting horse sales'' 
     before the semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Agriculture has determined that the program through which the 
     Secretary inspects horses is inadequate for preventing 
     soring;
       ``(7) historically, Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking 
     Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses have been subjected to 
     soring; and
       ``(8) despite regulations in effect related to inspection 
     for purposes of ensuring that horses are not sore, violations 
     of this Act continue to be prevalent in the Tennessee Walking 
     Horse, Racking Horse, and Spotted Saddle Horse breeds.''.
       (c) Horse Shows and Exhibitions.--Section 4 of the Horse 
     Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1823) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``appointed'' and inserting ``licensed''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sentences: ``In 
     the first instance in which the Secretary determines that a 
     horse is sore, the Secretary shall disqualify the horse from 
     being shown or exhibited for a period of not less than 180 
     days. In the second instance in which the Secretary 
     determines that such horse is sore, the Secretary shall 
     disqualify the horse for a period of not less than one year. 
     In the third instance in which the Secretary determines that 
     such horse is sore, the Secretary shall disqualify the horse 
     for a period of not less than three years.'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``appointed'' and 
     inserting ``licensed'';
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c)(1)(A) The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation 
     requirements for the Department of Agriculture to license, 
     train, assign, and oversee persons qualified to detect and 
     diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses 
     at horse shows, horse exhibitions, or horse sales or 
     auctions, for hire by the management of such events, for the 
     purposes of enforcing this Act.
       ``(B) No person shall be issued a license under this 
     subsection unless such person is free from conflicts of 
     interest, as defined by the Secretary in the regulations 
     issued under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) If the Secretary determines that the performance of a 
     person licensed in accordance with subparagraph (A) is 
     unsatisfactory, the Secretary may, after notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing, revoke the license issued to such 
     person.
       ``(D) In issuing licenses under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall give a preference to persons who are licensed 
     or accredited veterinarians.
       ``(E) Licensure of a person in accordance with the 
     requirements prescribed under this

[[Page H7369]]

     subsection shall not be construed as authorizing such person 
     to conduct inspections in a manner other than that prescribed 
     for inspections by the Secretary (or the Secretary's 
     representative) under subsection (e).
       ``(2)(A) Not later than 30 days before the date on which a 
     horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction 
     begins, the management of such show, exhibition, or sale or 
     auction may notify the Secretary of the intent of the 
     management to hire a person or persons licensed under this 
     subsection and assigned by the Secretary to conduct 
     inspections at such show, exhibition, or sale or auction.
       ``(B) After such notification, the Secretary shall assign a 
     person or persons licensed under this subsection to conduct 
     inspections at the horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
     sale or auction.
       ``(3) A person licensed by the Secretary to conduct 
     inspections under this subsection shall issue a citation with 
     respect to any violation of this Act recorded during an 
     inspection and notify the Secretary of each such violation 
     not later than five days after the date on which a citation 
     was issued with respect to such violation.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) The Secretary shall publish on the public website of 
     the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the 
     Department of Agriculture, and update as frequently as the 
     Secretary determines is necessary, information on violations 
     of this Act for the purposes of allowing the management of a 
     horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction to 
     determine if an individual is in violation of this Act.''.
       (d) Unlawful Acts.--Section 5 of the Horse Protection Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1824) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``or (C) respecting'' and inserting ``(C), 
     or (D) respecting''; and
       (B) by striking ``and (D)'' and inserting ``(D) causing a 
     horse to become sore or directing another person to cause a 
     horse to become sore for the purpose of showing, exhibiting, 
     selling, auctioning, or offering for sale the horse in any 
     horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction; and 
     (E)'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``appoint'' and inserting 
     ``hire'';
       (3) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``appoint'' and inserting ``hire''; and
       (B) by striking ``qualified'';
       (4) in paragraph (5), by striking ``appointed'' and 
     inserting ``hired'';
       (5) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking ``appointed'' and inserting ``hired''; and
       (B) by inserting ``that the horse is sore'' after ``the 
     Secretary''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(12) The use of an action device on any limb of a 
     Tennessee Walking Horse, a Racking Horse, or a Spotted Saddle 
     Horse at a horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 
     auction.
       ``(13) The use of a weighted shoe, pad, wedge, hoof band, 
     or other device or material at a horse show, horse 
     exhibition, or horse sale or auction that--
       ``(A) is placed on, inserted in, or attached to any limb of 
     a Tennessee Walking Horse, a Racking Horse, or a Spotted 
     Saddle Horse;
       ``(B) is constructed to artificially alter the gait of such 
     a horse; and
       ``(C) is not strictly protective or therapeutic in 
     nature.''.
       (e) Violations and Penalties.--Section 6 of the Horse 
     Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1825) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Except as provided in paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection, any person who knowingly violates section 
     5'' and inserting ``Any person who knowingly violates section 
     5 or the regulations issued under such section, including any 
     violation recorded during an inspection conducted in 
     accordance with section 4(c) or 4(e)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``more than $3,000, or imprisoned for not 
     more than one year, or both.'' and inserting ``more than 
     $5,000, or imprisoned for not more than three years, or both, 
     for each such violation.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by striking ``(2)''; and
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively, and moving the margins 
     of such paragraphs (as so redesignated) two ems to the left; 
     and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Any person who knowingly fails to obey an order of 
     disqualification shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not 
     more than $5,000 for each failure to obey such an order, 
     imprisoned for not more than three years, or both.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``section 5 of this Act'' and inserting 
     ``section 5 or the regulations issued under such section''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``$4,000''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Any person who fails to pay a licensed inspector 
     hired under section 4(c) shall, upon conviction thereof, be 
     fined not more than $4,000 for each such violation.''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the first sentence--
       (i) by inserting ``, or otherwise participating in any 
     horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction'' 
     before ``for a period of not less than one year''; and
       (ii) by striking ``any subsequent'' and inserting ``the 
     second'';
       (B)  by inserting before ``Any person who knowingly fails'' 
     the following: ``For the third or any subsequent violation, a 
     person may be permanently disqualified by order of the 
     Secretary, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing 
     before the Secretary, from showing or exhibiting any horse, 
     judging or managing any horse show, horse exhibition, or 
     horse sale or auction, or otherwise participating in, 
     including financing the participation of other individuals 
     in, any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 
     auction (regardless of whether walking horses are shown, 
     exhibited, sold, auctioned, or offered for sale at the horse 
     show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction).''; and 
       (C) by striking ``$3,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$5,000''.
       (f) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     issue regulations to carry out the amendments made by this 
     section, including regulations prescribing the requirements 
     under subsection (c) of section 4 of the Horse Protection Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1823(c)), as amended by subsection (c)(3).
       (g) Severability.--If any provision of this Act or any 
     amendment made by this Act, or the application of a provision 
     to any person or circumstance, is held to be 
     unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act, and the application of the 
     provisions to any person or circumstance, shall not be 
     affected by the holding.

     SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 693.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to lead H.R. 693, the U.S. Senator Joseph D. 
Tydings Memorial Prevent All Soring Tactics Act, with my colleague, 
good friend, and fellow veterinarian, Congressman Ted Yoho.
  The PAST Act would finally end the incredibly abusive practice of 
horse soring. Soring is the act of deliberately causing pain on a 
horse's legs or hooves to artificially exaggerate the horse's normal 
gait. The gait is called the ``big lick.''
  Horses can, and are, trained to do this naturally, but, 
unfortunately, a cottage industry has been built up around this abusive 
soring practice.
  Soring is most commonly done to Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking 
Horse, and Spotted Saddle Horse breeds.
  Soring can be done by applying caustic chemicals to a horse's lower 
leg--imagine that--trimming their hooves unnaturally, applying weighted 
shoes to the horse's hooves, and wrapping ``action devices'' like heavy 
chains around a horse's hooves.
  The Horse Protection Act of 1970 outlawed chemical soring, 
supposedly, which causes burning and blistering to horses' legs, and 
soring caused by--actually, they used to inject nails, tacks, and 
chemical agents into the limb of the horse.
  It did not include the action devices, however, or the stacked shoes 
which are also common in today's soring techniques.
  We have a photo, I think, that shows very clearly what this is like. 
The photo actually shows--which we would like to get up here at some 
point in time, if that is remotely possible--that it is actually a 
package.
  What they do is use plastic pads and wedges stacked on one another, 
actually nailed together, and then attached to the bottom of the hoof.

[[Page H7370]]

  The package elevates the horse's front feet and adds weight and 
pressure, causing the horse's foot to strike at a very unusual and 
painful angle.
  The chains are wrapped over the horse's chemically sored and raw 
front pastern, increasing the pain felt by the horse and further 
exaggerating that big lick, pain-induced gait, which again, as I said 
before, is not necessary. Horses will move with that action under their 
own volition when properly trained by an actual trainer.
  Our bill will make it illegal to use these and other similar devices 
in the show ring, and horses would only be allowed to show with a 
normal horseshoe.
  There is the photo I was alluding to earlier.
  Some people may argue that these action devices are not harmful for 
horses, but the experts at the American Veterinary Medical Association, 
the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and the United States 
Equine Federation all say that pressure from these items contained in 
this package produce pain in the hoof and in the leg, that the horse 
lifts its feet higher and faster in an exaggerated gait beyond what 
they are naturally able to do.
  All of these organizations support a ban on action devices and 
packages to protect the health and welfare of the horse.
  As a veterinarian with over 30 years' experience, I agree with them. 
I agree with the AVMA that it is indisputable that soring causes horses 
an unnecessary and unacceptable level of pain. These horses--it is 
horrible when you see them, you see what is going on in the legs of 
these horses.
  They used to actually use soldering irons sometimes to blister the 
horses' legs so that they would react to these chains in an exaggerated 
manner. I saw that.
  In addition to outlawing action devices and stacked shoes, the PAST 
Act will also end the unsuccessful system of industry self-policing 
that we tried for almost 40 years.
  The USDA has let it run, and, unfortunately, it has been completely 
ineffective. Our bill will require the USDA to create a process to 
train, license, assign, and oversee impartial inspectors--hopefully 
veterinarians, among others--who can detect and diagnose horses that 
have been sored.
  It will also require the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service to publicly publish information on sorers so that the folks 
managing the horse shows, competitions, and sales know who has broken 
the law and abused their horses.
  Soring has been illegal since 1970, yet here we are 50 years later, 
and soring is still taking place. Self-policing has not worked.
  There is a clear and demonstrable need for this bill. To oppose this 
action is a disservice to the people who really work hard and train and 
show horses the right way, without abusing them.
  That is who we should be focused on right now--not the abusers but 
the animals, these equine athletes that we love and revere so much.
  Our bill is supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association; 
the American Horse Council; American Association of Equine 
Practitioners; National Sheriffs' Association; Kentucky-based United 
States Equestrian Federation; the All American Walking Horse Alliance; 
Animal Wellness Action; Humane Society; veterinary medical associations 
from all 50 States; and many, many more.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Horse 
Council


                                       American Horse Council,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2019.
     Hon. Kurt Schrader,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Yoho,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Schrader and Yoho: The American Horse 
     Council (AHC) congratulates you for your leadership and hard 
     work to position the Sen. Joseph Tydings Memorial Prevent All 
     Soring Tactics (PAST) Act (H.R. 693) for a vote on the House 
     floor prior to adjourning for the August recess. With more 
     than 300 cosponsors on your bill, we look forward to a 
     resounding and long-awaited legislative victory for equine 
     welfare.
       As you know, the PAST Act outlines a commonsense solution 
     to prevent the continued practice of taking action on a 
     horse's limb to produce an accentuated gait during 
     competition. The scope of the bill is limited. It lays out a 
     specific framework that focuses enforcement efforts on three 
     horse breeds--the Tennessee Walking Horses, Spotted Saddle 
     Horses, and Racking Horses--that continue to be the target of 
     soring practices. The treatment of these select breeds stands 
     in stark contrast to the dramatic decline in the overall 
     mistreatment of horses that has occurred since enactment of 
     the HPA during the 1970s. AHC, along with most major national 
     horse show organizations and state and local organizations, 
     supports the PAST Act. Also, AHC members have sent hundreds 
     ofletters to your House colleagues this year supporting H.R. 
     693.
       Thank you very much for all the efforts you're making to 
     push this important bill across the finish line. If you'd 
     like more information related to the PAST Act, feel free to 
     contact me.
           Regards,
                                           Julie M. Broadway, CAE,
     President, AHC.
                                  ____

  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, the PAST Act will strengthen existing law 
to ensure that horse soring becomes a thing of the past.
  It is a commonsense bill and widely supported. I am proud to have 307 
of my colleagues as cosponsors on this bill, especially the original 
cosponsors, the long-time champions of this bill: Dr. Ted Yoho, 
Congressman Cohen of Tennessee, Congresswoman Schakowsky, Congressman 
Estes, and Congressman Collins.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the PAST Act, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 693, the PAST Act. In a 
bipartisan fashion, this bill takes a step forward to protect horses 
from abuse and make the practice of ``soring'' something of the past.
  As with many other professions, I know the vast majority of breeders 
and trainers care deeply about their horses and their businesses.
  As someone who has been a practicing pharmacist for over 30 years, I 
can tell you that there is nothing more offensive than people in your 
profession who don't follow the rules. That is why it is so important 
to address the small number of bad actors and ensure that the men and 
women who follow the rules have the ability to operate in a profession 
they care so deeply about.
  Although the practice of soring is already banned and the industry 
takes action to police itself, there are still examples of this 
occurring in the United States.
  Additionally, loopholes in Federal law often disallowed the United 
States Department of Agriculture from taking action against those 
individuals who are soring their horses. That is why this bill is so 
important.
  H.R. 639 amends the 1976 Horse Protection Act to make important 
changes in enforcement and to address any criteria that could lead to 
soring.
  In addition to the technical provisions laid out in this bill, it is 
an example of the work that can be accomplished when both sides of the 
aisle work together.
  While I would have preferred we address this in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, we are here because of the widespread support for 
this legislation, which has 307 cosponsors. Simply put, we are here 
because we want to improve the support and strengthen it, not weaken 
it.
  It is my hope that we can continue to work on these and other issues 
together to ensure a better industry for all of those involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, the best committee in the House.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon, 
particularly for saying we are the best committee in the House.
  I rise in support of his bill, H.R. 693, the PAST Act.
  I want to start by thanking Representatives Schrader and Yoho for 
their work over the past several years on this important bill that will 
finally put an end to the cruel practice of soring Tennessee Walking 
Horses, Spotted Saddle Horses, and Racking Horses.
  This incredibly painful practice has been illegal in the United 
States for

[[Page H7371]]

nearly 50 years, since Congress passed the Horse Protection Act of 
1970. But despite the Federal ban, soring continues to run rampant in 
some segments of the walking horse industry.
  The bill would amend the Horse Protection Act and finally put an end 
to the abhorrent practice for good. The bill bans the use at horse 
shows of chains, weighted shoes, and other devices that are commonly 
used to sore horses.
  It also puts an end to the failed system of industry self-policing by 
giving the USDA authority to train and license independent inspectors 
at horse shows. The legislation also strengthens penalties on those who 
violate the law.
  This bill has received endorsements from hundreds of equine and 
veterinary organizations, including more than 60 State and national 
horse groups, and all 50 State veterinary medical associations.
  So, again, I thank Representative Schrader for his continued 
leadership. It is time that Congress pass this legislation and put an 
end to soring once and for all.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), a veterinarian, who 
has worked on this bill tirelessly and has done a yeoman's job at 
getting it to this point here.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues. I would 
like to thank Dr. Schrader, and the leadership of the House to bring 
this bill up.
  I am here today for two reasons: One, we shouldn't even be here to 
have to run this through this body and take up valuable time, 
legislative time, that we could be talking about our debt, border, 
those kinds of things, but we are here.
  First, it saddens me that we have to pass a bill to stiffen fines and 
penalties to keep people from doing the despicable act of intentionally 
soring a horse's forelegs. And this is done through chemical means or 
mechanical devices to artificially--understand this--artificially 
accentuate the gait of the Tennessee Walking, Racking, or Saddle Horse.
  Dr. Schrader and I are both equine vets, the only ones in the House. 
We know this. We have seen this. We have dealt with this.
  As Dr. Schrader brought up, the Horse Protection Act was passed in 
1970 to stop this. It was passed to stop this. That industry has had 49 
years to bring this to an end, and they wanted to self-police. They 
have had 49 years to self-police, and they have not brought this to an 
end.
  I have got a shoe here that the gentleman had a picture of. This is a 
built-up shoe that we use on horses. I could drop it on the table, but 
I don't want to get the bill to fix it. This weighs about 10 pounds. 
This is one foot, on the front of a leg.
  Then they put these devices on there. After they put the chemical 
irritant on the leg to irritate it, then they put this on there. And 
you know why they do that? So they can win a blue ribbon. So that they 
can win a blue ribbon and take it and say, Look what we have 
accomplished.
  It makes me sick that we have to spend the time to do this stuff.
  Secondly, it saddens me. We are talking about preserving a terrible 
practice of animal abuse. And I see it very clearly. You are either 
supportive of animal abuse or you are against it. That is the bottom 
line here.
  Congress shouldn't have to do this; but, again, that industry has had 
49 years. I had one of the trainers come in my office with an owner, 
for an hour and a half, to try to tell me not to support this bill. He 
showed me these weights and he looked at my watch. He goes: 
Congressman, that watch probably weighs about the same in relationship, 
body weight, as what you are wearing.
  I said, You know what? You are probably absolutely right. But there 
is a huge difference.
  And he goes, What is that?
  I said, I choose to put this watch on. That horse has no option.
  This bill is a good bill to get rid of a practice that is archaic and 
shouldn't be done. And it won't hurt this industry. It will make this 
industry stronger.
  And anybody that says this is going to kill the Tennessee Walking 
Horse industry is equivalent to the guy in the late 1800s that said, 
Those automobiles are bad; if you go over 30 miles an hour, you are 
going to die.
  We know that was a fallacy. Their argument is a fallacy.
  Every one of these agencies that he mentioned, the AVMA, the American 
Association of Equine Practitioners, every veterinary college in the 
United States of America, 98 percent of the farrier associations are 
for this bill. They are against the opposition to this bill, and I 
stand with this.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the other gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time and for his tireless efforts on this with Mr. Yoho. I have watched 
as the gentleman has battled this for years. I have worked with him to 
get cosponsorships.
  We have had the Animal Protection Caucus having sessions, bringing 
staff members, having demonstrations of this horrific practice.
  This is the ninth year that this has been before us. Now, I am 
pleased that we are here. I am pleased that we are making the case. I 
am pleased that, tonight, we are going to pass this legislation, 
although I wish it weren't at 10:30 at night for a few minutes; because 
there is no guarantee that, even with this case, with the momentum, 
that we are going to be able to get it through the Senate, where we 
have seen objection in the past.
  I hope that this legislation occasions a little bit of soul-
searching. The animal protection agenda of this Congress is one of the 
areas that brings people together, like my two veterinarian friends 
have shown bipartisan cooperation dealing with the facts, mustering 
support, being far more patient than I would have.
  I mean, the last two Congresses, we had 280 cosponsors. We couldn't 
even get a hearing, let alone get it on the floor. That is outrageous.
  Now, there is a little bit of political blowback. Some people who are 
part of that aren't here anymore. I hope that there are some lessons, 
both in terms of the politics and the basic decency for protection of 
animal welfare.
  I agree with the gentleman from Georgia, I wish it went through 
regular order. I wish that we had an opportunity in committees of 
jurisdiction to give a little bit of the time that is merited to be 
able to give the public a view of what is going on; the bureaucracy 
that, for 49 years, has been unable to take the self-policing mechanism 
and be able to make it work.
  I hope that this is the first of a series of items. I plan on talking 
to our leadership, and I hope we will have leadership on the other side 
of the aisle who, in the past have held off, despite overwhelming 
support, to the frustration, I know, of one of the principal sponsors.
  I hope that we understand that this is something that shouldn't be 
dealt with in a partisan fashion, and there shouldn't be jurisdictional 
battles. People ought to be able to take fundamental animal welfare 
issues and bring them forward on the merits, have the debate, and get 
them enacted. It will make people in this body feel better, because for 
a number of days, I think, people don't feel so good watching what 
happens around here, and we don't have much to show for our efforts.
  So I want to commend my colleagues for their patience and their 
perseverance.
  Vern Buchanan, my co-chair of the Animal Protection Caucus, has been 
writing op-eds with me and working on this, so it's a culmination of a 
lot of work.
  But I hope it is a first step toward dealing with an area that is 
supported by the American public. It is important work. It is not 
particularly controversial, except for a few special interests who, 
frankly, don't have a leg to stand on, even though they didn't have one 
of those things on their legs.
  I hope that we can use this as an opportunity to make more progress 
in a bipartisan way to solve problems, not just for animal welfare, but 
other areas that the American people would like us to add
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais).
  Mr. DesJARLAIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
H.R. 693, the PAST Act.

[[Page H7372]]

  The only thing good about the PAST Act is the name, because it is 
reflective of just that, the past.
  I have been listening to my colleagues, and I don't think they have 
been spending time where I have, in the inspection barns over the last 
six-plus years, where I see people who love their animals, take care of 
them, and treat them like family.
  What I have seen is inspectors that were abusing the process, not 
self-policers, people sent by the USDA. And these people are being 
disqualified, not being able to perform, and then not subsequently 
being cited or penalized after the fact.
  Now, the last couple of years there has been an improvement. And 
today, the Tennessee Walking Horse has over 96 percent compliance rate, 
according to the USDA's own numbers.
  The only problem with the Tennessee Walking Horse today is that the 
current inspection methods are subjective. The PAST Act does nothing to 
change this.
  What is even more concerning is the PAST Act would increase fines and 
penalties, including up to 3 years in prison, while still utilizing 
subjective inspection methods.
  I have a bill, H.R. 1157, that numerous groups, including the 
American Farm Bureau Federation, believe is a better course of action, 
as it would require all inspections be objective and science-based.
  As a medical professional, I realize the importance of utilizing 
science to identify medical conditions. USDA realizes this problem and 
has sought to address it by partnering with the National Academy of 
Sciences to determine the best objective, science-based methods to 
inspect the Tennessee Walking Horse.
  I strongly believe that all legislation should be held off until this 
study reaches its conclusion next May.
  This legislation is a product of animal welfare groups spreading 
misinformation on the status of the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, 
again, living in the past. I fear that, to this point, some Members 
have been fed one side of the story from powerful interest groups like 
the Humane Society or PETA who, in advocating for their position, 
neglect the fact that numerous veterinarians, equine experts, and 
agricultural groups, including the Tennessee and Kentucky Farm Bureaus, 
have come out in strong opposition to the PAST Act.

                              {time}  2230

  An example of the biased presentation of this bill is the misguided 
scrutiny of action devices that are highlighted in the PAST Act.
  The claims put forth by special interests behind this bill that 
action devices are cruel or inhumane rest on very little academic 
evidence. In fact, to the contrary, a 2018 study by the American 
Veterinary Medical Association, the scientific authority on animal 
welfare issues, found that the application of stacked wedges and action 
devices to the forefeet of horses evoke no acute or subacute stress to 
the horse.
  I heard my colleague and good friend Dr. Yoho talk about his 
wristwatch. Most of you in here are wearing wristwatches, or some of 
you may just use your smartphones now, but you wear those all day, and 
that doesn't hurt you. If there is a soring agent applied, then, yes, 
that is going to cause problems. Action devices are pieces of equipment 
no different than a saddle or a bridle or a bit.
  This is a slippery slope, folks. What will these groups seek to ban 
next? Saddles, maybe riding horses at all.
  Like my colleagues, I feel strong that animal abusers should be 
identified and punished; however, the PAST Act will not accomplish this 
goal. These horses are already incredibly regulated, more so than any 
other horse, including those in rodeo, those that race, and those that 
do jumping and dressage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DesJARLAIS. No other horses are subjected to taxpayer-funded 
inspections, and these owners are already incredibly compliant. 
Furthermore, it is not true when groups suggest there is no additional 
cost to taxpayers. The CBO has scored this legislation at $2 million 
per year.
  The PAST Act purports itself to be an innocent bill that would 
provide stricter enforcement of standards in protecting horses. The 
fact of the matter is that it is a Federal overreach into an issue in 
which compliance is higher than any other USDA-regulated industry, 
including the food industry.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to carefully consider the consequences 
of this bill before casting their votes. It should go back to committee 
and be transparent.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee coming down 
and talking on this, and obviously he is from Tennessee and has an 
interest, maybe a slightly special interest in talking about the 
industry from his perspective.
  And if, indeed, most of the industry is complying, then he shouldn't 
object to this bill. This bill just makes sure that the bad actors that 
the gentleman from Georgia referenced in his opening remarks are, 
frankly, taken care of and they can, therefore, not compete unfairly 
against the other 90 percent that are doing the right thing.
  I will show you a picture here. I don't know if it shows up, but look 
at all the nails in here. Look at all this stuff. Congressman Yoho and 
I in our previous lives treated a lot of horses, would see a lot of 
limb problems, would see a lot of coffin bone problems in their feet.
  This sort of thing almost guarantees a horse is going to prematurely 
get arthritic, end its athletic career, and have serious problems. It 
is completely unnecessary and unfair.
  The Veterinary Medical Association states unequivocally, along with 
the American Association of Equine Practitioners, who are the medical 
experts--not the Farm Bureau from Kentucky or Tennessee; these are the 
medical experts--say that pads and chains cause harm to the horses.
  I believe the veterinary experts. There is no doubt.
  I would certainly hope that folks here would go with the body of 
evidence, the folks who care about the horses passionately, deeply, 
have worked on them for their entire professional career. Let's be fair 
about this, and let's make sure there is no unfair competition.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. John W. Rose).
  Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Today I rise in opposition to H.R. 693, the PAST Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Congressional Record a letter from the 
Kentucky and Tennessee Farm Bureau Federations opposing the PAST Act.


                                         Kentucky Farm Bureau,

                                                    July 23, 2019.
     Hon. Members of Congress,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of Congress: Please accept this letter as a 
     statement of opposition to H.R. 693, the Prevent All Soring 
     Tactics (PAST) Act by the Kentucky Farm Bureau and Tennessee 
     Farm Bureau.
       The PAST Act is misleading in its strategies and purpose 
     and sets a dangerous precedent for animal agriculture. Please 
     take the time to review it closely and understand this 
     initiative and the agenda of the Humane Society of the United 
     States (HSUS). While the PAST Act expressly targets Walking 
     Horses, this push by the HSUS brings to question which 
     segment of animal-based agriculture will be targeted next.
       Supporters of the PAST Act argue the bill will ``eliminate 
     soring'' within the Walking Horse Industry. However, soring 
     is essentially nonexistent today. The bill professes to end 
     soring by banning hoof pads and action devices which are used 
     in Walking Horse performance shows, and implies such items 
     cause soring. Hoof pads and action devices do not cause 
     soring. Hoof pads are used to provide protection from ground 
     force, to accentuate movement, and balance motion. These pads 
     are used in many breeds other than the Walking Horse 
     including the American Paint Horse, American Quarter Horse, 
     American Saddlebred, and Morgan breeds. An action device is a 
     band/chain weighing six (6) ounces or less. We are not aware 
     of a study that indicates action devices or pads produce pain 
     or cause tissue damage.
       The Tennessee Walking Horse is the most inspected horse in 
     the world. The industry and its shows maintain a compliance 
     rate with the Horse Protection Act that averages 92-95%. This 
     rate is significant considering the inspection process today 
     is almost 100% subjective.
       The PAST Act eliminates the organizations established by 
     Congress in the original

[[Page H7373]]

     Horse Protection Act called Horse Industry Organizations 
     (HIOs). These independent organizations provide inspectors 
     for shows and are trained and certified by the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture (USDA). Without HIOs, the PAST Act 
     requires an increase in the USDA's workforce as well as 
     additional employees for the U.S. Department of Justice. The 
     Congressional Budget Office numbers reflect this cost.
       We urge you to not accept the mistreatment claims from 
     years past as true today. Visit a Walking Horse farm and see 
     the horses. Visit with a horse owner, trainer, farrier and 
     their veterinarians. Contact your state Farm Bureau, the 
     Tennessee Farm Bureau or the Kentucky Farm Bureau if you want 
     assistance arranging a visit or tour.
       We urge you to oppose H.R. 693.
       Thank you for your consideration of this information.
           Sincerely,
     Jeff Aiken,
       President, Tennessee Farm Bureau.
     Mark Haney,
       President, Kentucky Farm Bureau.

  Mr. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, as an eighth-generation 
farmer and Tennessean, the grand tradition of Tennessee Walking Horses 
is among my earliest and fondest memories. We take great pride in the 
Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration, drawing neighbors and 
tourists alike to Shelbyville, Tennessee, every year for our world-
class showcase.
  However, this grand tradition is not unmarred by a few bad actors 
looking to gain at the expense of innocent exhibitors. Soring has been 
investigated and debated, and both Congress and industry leaders have 
put forth their best efforts to end this horrible practice.
  Tennessee Walking Horses are regal and strong, but the ones that 
suffer from soring are harmed in ways that are cruel and unjust. The 
bad actors who are soring compromise fair competition and the integrity 
of this great tradition, but most importantly, they endanger our prized 
Tennessee Walking Horses.
  I can assure you we in Tennessee stand against this vile practice. My 
strong opposition to soring is why I rise today in opposition to the 
PAST Act. It is my belief that this bill is not the best solution to 
this cruel practice.
  While I appreciate the sincere motives of those who support this 
bill, I call on my colleagues to consider another, better solution. I 
am a cosponsor of H.R. 1157, the Horse Protection Amendments Act, 
authored by my colleague from Tennessee, Congressman DesJarlais. This 
bill works to end soring in a way that is fair to those acting properly 
and humanely and provides timely consequences for those who are not.
  Inspections must be objective, but the PAST Act does not correct the 
current subjective process that is used. My colleagues' bill, H.R. 
1157, creates a framework for consistent, scientific, and objective 
inspections.
  H.R. 693 does not solve the real issue here: soring. Industrywide, 
the current compliance rate is between 92 and 95 percent. In fact, 
Tennessee's celebration had a compliance rate of 96 percent last year. 
These compliance rates are based on the USDA standards.
  As the Farm Bureau has pointed out, the Tennessee Walking Horse is 
the most inspected horse in the world. Overall, the industry has a USDA 
compliance rate higher than even the food industry. With that, the rate 
of catching bad actors at this point is, of course, extremely low.
  These low rates mean we must be vigilant if we are going to find and 
stop bad actors. Vigilance will require a new system. The PAST Act does 
not create a scientific, objective process for inspections, and until 
we have that, the remaining bad actors will continue to go under the 
radar, while those acting with integrity could be treated unfairly.
  It is because of these concerns that I will oppose the PAST Act 
today. I call on my colleagues to oppose the PAST Act and, instead, 
stand with me in truly stopping soring by supporting H.R. 1157.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out for those who are 
listening that the bill referenced by the gentleman from Tennessee is 
another self-policing bill where you have, frankly, the industry and 
the horse people from those States selecting and designating these 
people for inspection. And contrary to some of the remarks, the PAST 
Act has science behind it, licensed, trained professionals--again, 
probably veterinarians, for the most part--who are going to be the ones 
who are going to be looking at this.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), my good 
friend and colleague.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding the time.
  The information you just heard there is a lot of fallacy in that. He 
makes it sound like the Farm Bureau is behind this. The Farm Bureau is 
not behind it, other than in Tennessee and in Kentucky.
  I have got a list here of the infractions, and 90 percent of them are 
from Tennessee; a couple from Kentucky, a couple from North Carolina, 
but the majority are from Tennessee.
  This bill, we sat down specifically with the USDA, APHIS, the 
regulating body of the USDA on animal cruelty, and we made sure, being 
a practicing veterinarian, that the owner was protected and that the 
trainer was protected from an overzealous USDA inspector. They have to 
be certified and trained, and they have to be licensed. And we added 
the objective testing.
  We use thermography. We use radiology. We do swabs of the skin. In 
fact, we use the same technology that our Department of Homeland 
Security uses to pick up traces of explosives and things like that. 
That is how in-depth we went. But we also made sure the safeguards were 
there for the owner and for the trainer.
  This bill should not have to--he talked about this is something in 
the past. Well, if it was in the past, we wouldn't do it.
  And he brought up the expense of this bill. So we are saying it is 
okay, if it is too expensive, we can't do this. We can sore the horses 
because it is too expensive. That is a bogus argument, and I think it 
is a shameful argument.
  And again, the bottom line comes, you are either for animal cruelty 
or you are against it. It is real simple.
  And, again, let me show you this. Look at the nails in this. This is 
a keg shoe. A horse doesn't need that. This is to win a blue ribbon.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As a family owner and a fan of the Tennessee Walker breed, I rise 
today in strong support of this very important animal protection bill, 
the PAST Act, of which I am a cosponsor.
  I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho) 
for his tireless leadership on this bill, as well as the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Schrader). I thank them.
  So the PAST Act bans the practice of soring, which is a process of 
inflicting pain on horses' hooves an their legs in order to give them a 
higher gait. Breeders sometimes use soring to give their horses an 
advantage in competition, as we have talked about tonight, but the pain 
inflicted upon the animals is inhumane, and it should be stopped.

  For years, we have known about this harmful practice, yet there has 
been very little action to remedy or fix the problem.
  A recent story I read described the process of exposing sensitive 
tissues within the hooves of the horse by filing away the hoof. Sharp 
objects, such as screws, are then pierced into the sensitive tissue 
inflicting pain to the animal. The damaged tissue that appears after 
this process is burned away sometimes with acids that burn the horse's 
skin.
  Sadly, this barbaric practice continues, and sometimes even out in 
the open.
  The current enforcement mechanisms we have in place are not working 
well enough, and it is time to pass this important bipartisan piece of 
legislation. Horses, especially those used in shows, are beautiful 
animals that have done nothing to deserve the pain that soring causes.
  So once enacted into law, the PAST Act will ensure that we have a 
more efficient system in place to protect our equine companions from 
unnecessary, inhumane, and cruel suffering.
  So once again, I want to thank my friend, the veterinarian from 
Florida, for his work and also just to let you know that my Tennessee 
Walkers, our family's Tennessee Walkers, Just Power and Dancers Boss 
Lady, thank you, as well.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me 
in

[[Page H7374]]

supporting H.R. 693, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate the discussion here tonight. I wish we didn't have to 
have this discussion. Unfortunately, soring is still with us, and it is 
crystal clear we need the PAST Act, a commonsense bill to give USDA and 
the industry itself the ability to clean out these bad actors who are, 
frankly, a stain on the Tennessee Walking industry that we all love and 
respect. Those horses are majestic. Anyone that has been around an 
equine athlete just can't be but in awe of what they are able to do.
  Soring is completely unnecessary. Good trainers, good veterinary 
help, these horses are going to perform in a way that make Americans 
proud.
  I thank my colleagues for the work on the bill and urge all my 
colleagues to support the PAST Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 693, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________