[House Report 111-645]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-645
=====================================================================
HORSE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ACT OF 2009
_______
September 28, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 305]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 305) to amend title 49, United
States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses in
interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing two or
more levels stacked on top of one another, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and
recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Legislation
H.R. 305, the ``Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2009'',
prohibits the interstate transportation of horses in a motor
vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one
another and authorizes civil penalties of at least $100 but not
more than $500 for each violation of this prohibition.
Background and Need for Legislation
H.R. 305 prohibits the interstate transportation of horses
in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top
of one another and authorizes civil penalties of at least $100
but not more than $500 for each violation of this prohibition.
Double-stacked trailers are designed for the transportation of
livestock, such as cattle and hogs. Since horses are much
larger and taller than cattle, trailers able to be stacked on
top of one another do not provide enough headroom for horses to
stand upright. The American Veterinary Medical Association
(AMVA) recommends a trailer height of seven to eight feet as
adequate for horse transport.
Most horse owners have a strong interest in protecting
their animals and provide transportation that takes into
account the comfort and safety of the horses. However, in some
cases, the welfare of the animal may not be a primary
consideration, such as transportation to feed lots or
slaughter.
Recent highway accidents have raised questions about the
safety and humanity of transporting horses in double-stacked
trailers. AVMA has found that double-stacked trailers increase
the rates of injury to horses in the event of an accident.
Further, because crashes involving double-stacked horse
trailers can cause significant debris and destruction, these
accidents can result in significant clean up costs. Examples of
recent accidents include:
On May 18, 2010, a cattle trailer hauling horses
to a feedlot in Texas crashed on the Turner Turnpike in
Oklahoma. Eleven of the 30 horses being transported died.
In October 2007, a double-decker tractor trailer
carrying 59 Belgian draft horses through Wadsworth, Illinois,
crashed; 15 of the horses died as a result of the accident.
In 2006, a double-stacked trailer hauling 41
horses to a slaughterhouse in DeKalb, Illinois, crashed,
killing 16 horses.
In 1996, in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127), Congress required the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue regulations to
regulate, in the United States, the commercial transportation
of horses bound for a slaughter facility. USDA issued a final
rule on December 7, 2001. In the rule, USDA acknowledged that
while double-stacked trailers can carry more horses than
single-deck trailers, ``we do not believe that equines can be
safely and humanely transported on a conveyance that has an
animal cargo space divided into two or more stacked
levels.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Commerical Transport of Equines to Slaughter, 66 Fed. Reg. 63594
(December 7, 2001), http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=VEzgIr/0/2/0&WAISaction=retreive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA prohibited the use of double-stacked trailers to carry
horses to slaughter beginning five years after issuance of the
final rule, or December 2006. The regulations also included
requirements for food and water for horses prior to being
loaded into trailers bound for slaughter. However, this rule
only applies to the transportation of horses directly to a
slaughter facility. The vast majority of slaughterhouses are
located outside of the United States, in Canada or Mexico.
Currently, horses can be transported long distances across
the United States to feedlots located near the border, or other
interim points, in double-stacked trailers before being
transferred to single trailers for final transportation to
slaughter because these transportation segments are not covered
by USDA regulations. There is also no prohibition against
double-stacked trailers to transport horses for any reason
other than transporting horses bound for slaughter.
Summary of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 designates the short title of the Act as the
``Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2009''.
Sec. 2. Transportation of horses
Subsection (a) amends title 49, United States Code, to add
a new section 80505 that prohibits any person from
transporting, or causing to be transported, a horse from a
place in a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or
possession of the United States through or to a place in
another State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or
possession of the United States in a motor vehicle containing
two or more levels stacked on top of one another. Subsection
(a) further establishes civil penalties of at least $100 but
not more than $500 for each violation of this prohibition. The
civil penalties authorized by this section do not grant the
Secretary of Transportation the authority to issue penalties.
Rather, the section directs the Attorney General, upon learning
of a violation, to bring a civil action to collect the penalty
in the district court of the United States for the judicial
district in which the violation occurred or in which the
defendant resides or does business.
Subsection (b) makes a conforming amendment to chapter 805
of title 49, United States Code.
Legislative History and Committee Consideration
In the 110th Congress, Representative Mark Steven Kirk
introduced H.R. 6278, the ``Horse Transportation Safety Act of
2008'', on June 17, 2008. No further action was taken on the
bill.
In the 111th Congress, Representative Mark Steven Kirk
introduced H.R. 305 on January 8, 2009. On July 29, 2010, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open
session, and ordered the bill reported favorably to the House
by voice vote with a quorum present.
Record Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. There
were no recorded votes taken in connection with consideration
of H.R. 305 or ordering the bill reported. A motion to order
H.R. 305 reported favorably to the House was agreed to by voice
vote with a quorum present.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
Cost of Legislation
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee references the report of the Congressional Budget
Office included in the report.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to
prohibit the interstate transportation of horses in a motor
vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one
another.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 305
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 13, 2010.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 305, the Horse
Transportation Safety Act of 2009.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Sunshine
(For Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 305--Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2009
H.R. 305 would prohibit the interstate transportation of
horses in motor vehicles containing two or more levels and
establishes a civil penalty for violators. Because CBO expects
that few penalties would be imposed and that enforcement of
this new prohibition would occur as part of current safety
reviews of commercial vehicles, we estimate that enacting H.R.
305 would have no significant impact on the federal budget.
Pay-as-you-go procedures apply to the legislation because
the bill would create a new civil penalty of $500 for
violations of the law. Civil fines are recorded in the budget
as revenues and deposited into the general fund of the
Treasury. Based on information from the Department of
Transportation, CBO estimates that the number of violations
would be small and would not result in a significant impact on
the federal budget.
H.R. 305 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The prohibitions in H.R. 305 would impose a private-sector
mandate, as defined in UMRA. That mandate would primarily
affect entities that transport horses to rodeos or feeding
centers. Based on information from the United States Department
of Agriculture and industry experts, CBO estimates that the
cost of the mandate would fall below the annual threshold
established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($141 million
in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sarah Puro. The
estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With House Rule XXI
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits, as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. H.R. 305
does not contain any earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits under clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character shall include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (P.L. 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 305 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104-1).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 805--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec.
80501. Damage to transported property.
* * * * * * *
80505. Transportation of horses.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 80505. Transportation of horses
(a) Prohibition.--No person may transport, or cause to be
transported, a horse from a place in a State, the District of
Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States
through or to a place in another State, the District of
Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States in
a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of
one another.
(b) Civil Penalty.--A person that knowingly violates this
section is liable to the United States Government for a civil
penalty of at least $100 but not more than $500 for each
violation. A separate violation occurs under this section for
each horse that is transported, or caused to be transported, in
violation of this section. On learning of a violation, the
Attorney General shall bring a civil action to collect the
penalty in the district court of the United States for the
judicial district in which the violation occurred or the
defendant resides or does business.
(c) Motor Vehicle Defined.--In this section, the term ``motor
vehicle'' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power
and manufactured primarily for use on public highways, but does
not include a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
(d) Relationship to Other Laws.--The penalty provided under
this section shall be in addition to a penalty or remedy
available under any other law or common law.
* * * * * * *