[House Report 109-617]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Rept. 109-617
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
PROHIBITION ON SHIPPING, TRANSPORTING, MOVING, DELIVERING, RECEIVING,
POSSESSING, PURCHASING, SELLING, OR DONATION OF HORSES AND OTHER
EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
_______
September 6, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the
following
ADVERSE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 503]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred 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, having considered the same, report unfavorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill do not
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
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;
``(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'' and
inserting ``$5,000,000''.
Purpose and Need
It is customary when submitting a report on a committee's
legislative action to the full House to describe for the
benefit of Members and to document the legislative history, a
summary of the purpose and need for the legislation under
consideration. In the case of H.R. 503, this is a particularly
challenging task since the purpose appears to be nothing more
than ameliorating the emotional tirade of the extreme animal
rights movement; and the need is, well to be blunt, there
simply is no need for this legislation.
H.R. 503, if adopted, would amend the Horse Protection Act
to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering,
receiving, processing, purchasing, selling, or donation of
horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human
consumption, and for other purposes. Note that the
Congressional proponents do not seem to have a problem if the
horse is slaughtered and disposed of in a landfill, or if the
meat from the horse is used in animal feed. They only seem to
be focused on outlawing the cultural and ethnic practice
prevalent in communities in the United States and around the
world of consuming horsemeat.
As the Committee on Agriculture heard in testimony from the
veterinary medical community, specialists in equine medicine,
and other horse and livestock associations, this legislation
has far-reaching implications for the entire animal agriculture
community.
As stated previously, H.R. 503 is part of a larger agenda
for the animal rights activists, an agenda against all of
animal agriculture. The proponents of H.R. 503 are not engaged
in a public policy discussion; they are engaged in a public
relations campaign. They have the bumper stickers, the
celebrities and the sound bites. They do not have facts.
The House Committee on Agriculture and by extension the
full House of Representatives has the duty to be guided by
sound fact and reason in order to responsibly represent
farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses and horse owners. As
evidenced by the near unanimous rejection of this legislation,
the Committee is concerned that if enacted, this bill would
negatively impact the health and welfare of horses across the
country.
H.R. 503 does not address the underlying issue of unwanted
horses in the U.S. It contributes to the problem. As a public
policy matter, this issue should be about what is the best
approach for the humane treatment of horses. Right now, the
only federally regulated transportation and euthanasia of
horses are the programs that this bill seeks to abolish.
Ironically, government supervision of humane treatment of
horses would be the first casualty of H.R. 503.
If the true purpose of this legislation were to provide for
humane treatment of horses, as the proponents say, then the
bill would address the issue of the fate of the hundreds of
thousands of horses it affects. If the bill were enacted as
written, within the first 6 years there would be an estimated
272,000 additional unwanted horses. The cost of maintaining
these horses has been conservatively estimated at between $3
and $4 billion. Several organizations have testified that there
are approximately 6,000 stalls available nationwide for
unwanted horses in rescue retirement facilities. This obviously
does not even scratch the surface of what will be needed if
H.R. 503 is enacted.
If H.R. 503 were to be enacted and euthanasia for human
consumption is prohibited, the Committee questions what would
be done with the potentially tens of thousands of extra horse
carcasses produced each year. All States regulate the disposal
of animal carcasses. Local governments already grapple with the
problem of unwanted dogs and cats and their disposal. Horses
are on average 50 times larger animals. There will be
tremendous difficulty for many local governments to properly
dispose of carcasses of euthanized horses. It will be expensive
and will create environmental and wildlife concerns. None of
which seems to have raised the slightest nod of concern from
the proponents of this legislation.
In a hearing before the Committee on Agriculture to review
this legislation, some very important questions were
considered. These included: What do we do to solve the problem
of unwanted horses in America? What are the rights of
individuals to decide what to do with their animals? What are
the implications for other livestock sectors if we ban humane
slaughter for one species? Why would the Federal Government put
a legitimate business, and in effect thousands of people, out
of work? What will happen to the thousands of horses that are
shipped to slaughter plants in other countries?
Make no mistake about it: this bill will not stop the
export of U.S. horses to other countries for slaughter.
H.R. 503 provides no mechanism to ensure owners do not
abandon horses, thus compelling the Congress to consider who
will deal with the abandoned, starving horses whose owners lack
the ability to care for them? Since the proponents offer no
solutions, it is incumbent upon the Congress to consider the
impact on States and counties that have a statutory obligation
to deal with unwanted animals. An answer must be given to the
question of how States and counties will cope with the
unintended consequence of abandoned horses left on their
doorstep.
One scenario that proponents like to discuss is the option
of sending the 90,000 or so unwanted horses every year to
rescue sanctuaries. If this were to be considered a legitimate
option, we must first ask who is going to ensure that there is
enough space, money, and expertise to properly care for
hundreds of thousands of animals that can easily live to 30
years of age? Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to
regulate these facilities?
With all of these questions left completely unanswered in
the hearing record, we must ask ourselves one final question:
Why is Congress rushing to enact legislation that causes so
many problems and solves none?
Even if the goal of this legislation was desirable, a
premise rejected by the Agriculture Committee, this is not a
bill that will improve the treatment of horses. Too little has
been done to deal with the consequences of destroying a
legitimate industry by government fiat.
If anything, H.R. 503 in its current form will lead to more
suffering for the horses it purports to help. This draconian
legislation will have far-reaching and significant detrimental
effects for horses, horse owners and the larger agriculture
sector.
Having accepted the responsibility to thoroughly review and
explore all legislation and federal policies that affect the
agriculture community, the Committee on Agriculture finds that
this legislation is woefully inadequate, emotionally misguided,
and fails to serve the best interest of the American horse, and
horse owner.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Prohibition on Shipping, Transporting, Moving, Delivering,
Receiving, Possessing, Purchasing, Selling, or Donation of
Horses and Other Equines for Slaughter for Human Consumption
Amends the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1820 et seq.)
for the purpose of prohibiting the slaughter of some horses for
human consumption.
(a) Definitions. Subsection (a) adds two new definitions to
the Horse Protection Act. It defines ``human consumption'' as
``ingestion by people as a source of food,'' and ``slaughter''
as ``the killing of one or more horses or other equines with
the intent to sell or trade the flesh for human consumption.''
(b) Findings. Subsection (b) adds six new congressional
findings to the Horse Protection Act.
(c) Prohibition. Subsection (c) adds a new prohibition to
the Horse Protection Act in the form of a pilot program in the
States of Kentucky and New York. Such pilot program shall
evaluate the feasibility of a nation-wide prohibition on
shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving,
possessing, purchasing, selling, or donating any horse or other
equine to be slaughtered for human consumption. Subsection (c)
also provides three exceptions to this prohibition: (1) the
equine is owned by a State or local government; (2) the equine
will be slaughtered at a facility in operation before the date
of enactment of the pilot program; or (3) the equine will be
slaughtered for human consumption for charitable or
humanitarian purposes.
(d) Authority to detain. Subsection (d) authorizes the
Secretary to detain for examination, testing, or the taking of
evidence any horse at a horse show, exhibition, sale or auction
that the Secretary has probably cause to believe is sore, or
any horse that the Secretary has probable cause to believe is
being shipped, transported, moved, delivered, received,
possessed, purchased, sold or donated for purpose of slaughter
for human consumption in violation of the prohibition on these
activities.
(e) Reimbursement. Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to
compensate the owner of an equine for the loss in value of the
equine due to the prohibition created under subsection (c),
above, and the cost of disposal of the equine.
(f) Responsibility for unwanted horses. Subsection (f)
provides that the Secretary shall assume responsibility for any
equine that is unwanted by its owner.
(g) Authorization of appropriations. Subsection (e)
provides for an increase of $4.5 million per year in the
authorization for appropriations to carry out the Horse
Protection Act, resulting in a total authorization of $5
million per year.
Committee Consideration
I. Hearings
On July 27, 2006, the Committee on Agriculture convened a
hearing to review H.R. 503. During the hearing, the Committee
heard from two panels of witnesses including the Honorable Don
Sherwood, former Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Charlie
Stenholm, as well as witnesses representing organizations that
oppose the bill.
More than 200 reputable horse organizations, animal health
organizations and agricultural organizations, including the
American Veterinary Medical Association, the American
Association of Equine Practitioners, the American Quarter Horse
Association and every state Horse Council that has taken a
position on H.R. 503, oppose the legislation.
II. Full Committee consideration
The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice, with
a quorum present, on July 27, 2006, to consider H.R. 503,
legislation to amend the Horse Protection Act, and other
pending business.
Chairman Goodlatte called the meeting to order and without
objection, H.R. 503 was placed before the Committee and open
for amendment at any point. Counsel was then recognized to give
a brief summary of the bill.
Mr. Conaway was then recognized to offer and explain an
amendment to require the Secretary of Agriculture to compensate
any horse owner who, no longer having the option of selling a
horse for processing, suffers a loss in value of his horse and
incurs the cost of euthanasia and disposal of the horse. Brief
discussion occurred and by a voice vote, the amendment was
adopted.
Mr. Salazar was recognized to offer and explain an
amendment to require the Secretary of Agriculture to assume
responsibility for all unwanted horses. Brief discussion
occurred and by a voice vote, the amendment was adopted.
Mr. King was then recognized to offer and explain an
amendment to exempt horses that are owned or controlled by a
state or local government. Brief discussion occurred and
without objection, the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. King then offered another amendment to require the
Secretary of Agriculture to reimburse states and local
governments for all costs they incur caring for stray or
abandoned horses as well as providing for the sale, adoption,
euthanization, or disposal, of such horses. Without objection,
the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. King also offered three amendments en bloc--an
amendment to exempt horses to be processed for charitable or
humanitarian relief purposes; an amendment to exempt horses
that are owned or controlled by a state, a political
subdivision of a state, or an individual who purchased the
horse from a state or local government; and an amendment to
provide that horses could not be shipped, transported, moved,
delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold, or donated to
be slaughtered at a plant that is not in existence on the date
of the enactment of the Act. Brief discussion occurred and by a
voice vote, the en bloc amendments were adopted.
Mr. Peterson was recognized to offer and explain an
amendment to make H.R. 503 a pilot program for the states of
Kentucky and New York. Brief discussion occurred, and by a
voice vote, the amendment was adopted.
There being no further amendments, Mr. Peterson moved that
H.R. 503 be reported unfavorably to the House, as amended, with
the recommendation that it do not pass. A recorded vote was
requested and by a vote of 37 yeas, 3 nays, and 6 not voting,
the bill was ordered reported, as amended, unfavorable to the
House with the recommendation that it do not pass. See Rollcall
No. 1.
After the Committee completed the other pending business,
Mr. Goodlatte then advised Members that pursuant to the Rules
of the House of Representatives that Members have 2 calendar
days to file such views with the Committee. No Members came
forth with intent to file additional views.
Without objection, staff was given permission to make any
necessary clerical, technical or conforming changes to reflect
the intent of the Committee
Chairman Goodlatte thanked all the Members and adjourned
the meeting subject to the call of the Chair.
Reporting the Bill--Rollcall Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the Committee sets forth the record of the
following rollcall votes taken with respect to H.R. 503.
Rollcall No. 1
Summary: Motion to unfavorably report H.R. 503, as amended,
to the House with the recommendation that it do not pass.
Offered by: Mr. Peterson.
Results: Adopted by a vote of 37 yeas/ 3 nays/ 6 not
voting.
YEAS
1. Goodlatte 20. Sodrel
2. Pombo 21. Peterson
3. Lucas 22. Holden
4. Moran 23. McIntyre
5. Jenkins 24. Etheridge
6. Hayes 25. Cardoza
7. Osborne 26. Marshall
8. Graves 27. Herseth
9. Bonner 28. Butterfield
10. Rogers 29. Cuellar
11. King 30. Melancon
12. Musgrave 31. Costa
13. Neugebauer 32. Salazar
14. Boustany 33. Barrow
15. Schwarz 34. Pomeroy
16. Kuhl 35. Boswell
17. Foxx 36. Larsen
18. Conaway 37. Davis
19. Fortenberry
NAYS
1. Johnson
2. Scott
3. Chandler
NOT VOTING
1. Everett
2. Gutknecht
3. Pence
4. Schmidt
5. Baca
6. Case
Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture's
oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the
body of this report.
Budget Act Compliance (Sections 308, 402, and 423)
The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new
budget authority, new spending authority, new credit authority,
or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not
considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to
be prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the Committee prior to the
filing of this report are as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 18, 2006.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 503, a bill 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.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jim Langley.
Sincerely,
Donald B. Marron,
Acting Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 503--A bill 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
Summary: H.R. 503 would amend provisions of the Horse
Protection Act of 1970 related to the slaughter of certain
equines. The bill would establish a pilot program in Kentucky
and New York to prohibit certain activities associated with the
slaughter of horses or other equines for human consumption. Due
to exceptions included in the bill, this prohibition would not
directly affect current equine slaughter activity in those or
other States. The bill also would require the Secretary of
Agriculture, subject to availability of appropriated funds, to
compensate equine owners for any economic loss due to such
prohibitions. In addition, the Secretary would be required to
assume responsibility for any equine--in any state--that is
unwanted by an owner.
The bill would authorize the appropriation of up to $5
million per year to implement its provisions, but CBO estimates
that those amounts would be insufficient to cover costs
incurred by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 503 would cost USDA $21 million in 2007 and
$233 million over the 2007-2011 period. H.R. 503 would not
affect direct spending or revenues.
H.R. 503 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
H.R. 503 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined
in UMRA. It would amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit--
within the States of New York and Kentucky--the shipping,
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing,
purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to
be slaughtered for human consumption. Certainexceptions to the
prohibition would apply. The bill also would require the Secretary to
compensate the owner of an equine who disposes of such equine due to
the prohibition. The compensation would be equal to the loss in value
of the equine due to the prohibition plus the disposal costs incurred.
Since owners who would normally sell their horses for human consumption
would be reimbursed for any loss in sale value, CBO estimates that the
direct costs of the mandates in this bill would be minimal relative to
the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates
($128 million in 2006, adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 503 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 350
(agriculture).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of
dollars--
---------------------------------------
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level... 25 35 50 60 75
Estimated Outlays............... 21 33 48 58 73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: H.R. 503 would require the Secretary to
assume responsibility for any equine (located in any state)
that is unwanted by an owner and would authorize the
appropriation of $5 million annually for that purpose. CBO
estimates, however, that the specified amounts would not be
sufficient to cover the USDA's costs under H.R. 503. Based on
information from USDA and private equine organizations, CBO
estimates that fully implementing the bill would cost $233
million over the 2007-2011 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts. That amount includes $153 million to
care for equines placed in suitable homes, $60 million to
euthanize equines which cannot be placed in homes, and $20
million to transport equines and provide administrative
services. That estimate assumes that equine owners would seek
to dispose of about 100,000 animals annually.
According to USDA, the American Association of Equine
Practitioners, and other private equine and humane
associations, around 65,000 to 75,000 horses (about 1 percent
of the domestic equine population) are sent to slaughter each
year. Currently, there are three domestic slaughter facilities
for horses: one in Illinois and two in Texas. H.R. 503 would
not likely have a significant impact on the total number of
equines slaughtered because the prohibition would only apply to
horses in the states of Kentucky and New York, and even equines
in those states would not be affected if, as expected, those
equines were shipped to an existing facility for slaughter.
Hence, CBO estimates that compensation payments from USDA to
equine owners for the lost economic value of horses prohibited
from being slaughtered, which would be subject to
appropriation, would be small.
Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal Governments:
H.R. 503 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 503 would
impose a private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA. It would
amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit--within the states
of New York and Kentucky--the shipping, transporting, moving,
delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or
donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for
human consumption.
Exceptions to the prohibition would apply if:
The equine 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;
The equine will be slaughtered at a facility
operating before the date of the enactment of the prohibition;
or,
The equine will be slaughtered for human
consumption for charitable or humanitarian purposes.
The bill also would require the Secretary of Agriculture to
compensate the owner of an equine who disposes of such equine
due to the prohibition. The compensation would be equal to the
loss in value of the equine due to the prohibition plus the
disposal costs incurred. Since owners who would normally sell
their horses for human consumption would be reimbursed for any
loss in such sale value, CBO estimates that the direct costs of
the mandates in this bill would be minimal relative to the
annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($128 million in 2006, adjusted annually for
inflation).
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jim Langley. Impact on
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller. Impact
on the Private Sector: Tyler Kruzich.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
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 objections of this legislation is 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.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the
Constitutional authority for this legislation in Article I,
clause 8, section 18, that grants Congress the power to make
all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the powers
vested by Congress in the Constitution of the United States or
in any department or officer thereof.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee report incorporates the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was 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 (Public Law
104-1).
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopted 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 (Public Law 104-4).
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 (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
HORSE PROTECTION ACT
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the ``Horse Protection Act''.
Sec. 2. As used in this Act unless the context otherwise
requires:
(1) The term ``human consumption'' means ingestion by
people as a source of food.
[(1)] (2) The term ``management'' means any person
who organizes, exercises control over, or administers
or who is responsible for organizing, directing, or
administering.
[(2)] (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(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.
[(3)] (5) The term ``sore'' when used to describe a
horse means that--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4)] (6) The term ``State'' means any of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Sec. 3. The Congress finds and declares that--
(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;
(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;
[(1)] (6) the soring of horses is cruel and inhumane;
[(2)] (7) horses shown or exhibited which are sore,
where such soreness improves the performance of such
horse, compete unfairly with horses which are not sore;
[(3) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of
sore horses in intrastate commerce adversely affects
and burdens interstate and foreign commerce;]
(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;
[(4)] (9) all horses which are subject to regulation
under this Act are either in interstate or foreign
commerce or substantially affect such commerce; and
[(5)] (10) regulation under this Act by the Secretary
is appropriate to prevent and eliminate burdens upon
commerce and to effectively regulate commerce.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5. The following conduct is prohibited:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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.
[(8)] (9) The failing to establish, maintain, or
submit records, notices, reports, or other information
required under section 4.
[(9)] (10) The failure or refusal to permit access to
or copying of records, or the failure or refusal to
permit entry or inspection, as required by section 4.
[(10)] (11) The removal of any marking required by
the Secretary to identify a horse as being detained.
[(11)] (12) The failure or refusal to provide the
Secretary with adequate space or facilities, as the
Secretary may be regulation under section 9 prescribe,
in which to conduct inspections or any other activity
authorized to be performed by the Secretary under this
Act.
Sec. 6. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e)(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).
[(1) The Secretary may detain (for a period not to
exceed twenty-four hours) for examination, testing, or
the taking of evidence, any horse at any horse show,
horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction which is
sore or which the Secretary has probably cause to
believe is sore.] (2) The Secretary may require the
temporary marking of any horse during the period of its
detention for the purpose of identifying the horse as
detained. A horse which is detained subject to this
paragraph shall not be moved by any person from the
place it is so detained except as authorized by the
Secretary or until the expiration of the detention
period applicable to the horse.
[(2)] (3) Any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or
substance which was used in violation of any provision
of this Act or any regulation issued under this Act or
which contributed to the soring of any horse at or
prior to any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse
sale or auction, shall be liable to be proceeded
against, by process of libel for the seizure and
condemnation and such equipment, device, paraphernalia,
or substance, in any United States district court
within the jurisdiction of which such equipment,
device, paraphernalia, or substance is found. Such
proceedings shall conform as nearly as possible to
proceedings in rem in admiralty.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 11. As part of the report submitted by the Secretary
under section 25 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2155), the
Secretary shall include information on the matters covered by
this Act, including enforcement and other actions taken
thereunder, together with such recommendations for legislative
and other action as he deems appropriate.]
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.
SEC. 11A. RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNWANTED HORSES.
The Secretary shall assume responsibility for any equine that
is unwanted by an owner.
Sec. 12. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this Act $125,000 for the period beginning July 1, 1976, and
ending September 30, 1976; and for the fiscal year beginning
October 1, 1976, and for each fiscal year thereafter there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums, not exceed [$500,000]
$5,000,000, as may be necessary to carry out this Act.