Amendment Text: H.Amdt.1204 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (09/07/2006)

This Amendment appears on page H6330 in the following article from the Congressional Record.


[Pages H6316-H6337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                AMERICAN HORSE SLAUGHTER PREVENTION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 981 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 503.

                              {time}  1200


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 503) to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, 
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, 
selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for 
human consumption, and for other purposes, with Mr. Putnam in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  As designees of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney) each will control 10 minutes.
  As designees of the minority leader, the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that H.R. 503 is an emotional issue for many 
people. It is my hope that this debate will give us a chance to look 
beyond the emotion and actually explore the facts of the issue in this 
particular bill. It is important that this discussion be fair, that it 
be open; and to that end the committee that I chair, the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, held a hearing a month ago that included witnesses 
from both sides and was fair and balanced. We put together a completely 
balanced hearing; and at the end of that hearing, it was clear to me 
that the majority of the experts have spoken, and they have spoken that 
H.R. 503 is bad policy and that it is bad for horses.
  It is not a secret that I am opposed to the bill in its current form. 
Despite what may have been said, it is not because I do not like 
horses. It is not because I had some bad experience when I was young. 
In fact, I had and continue to have very positive experiences with 
horses. My opposition to this bill stems from the simple fact that it 
comes with negative consequences that I believe are being overlooked.
  Ever since the bill has been introduced, I have been bombarded by 
calls, letters, and meeting requests from people both in my district 
and all over the country on both sides of the issue. I have heard from 
ranchers and horse owners as well as the American Quarter Horse 
Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American 
Association of Equine Practitioners, American Farm Bureau, National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers 
Association. The list goes on and on. I have also been approached by 
proponents of the bill that are very supportive and very emotionally 
and strongly attached to this particular bill. Unfortunately for those 
folks, I must say that I am opposed to the bill because the majority of 
the evidence is that it is a bad bill. In fact, over 200 national 
organizations oppose the bill. Yesterday, even the United States 
Department of Agriculture came out in opposition to the bill. These are 
groups that, frankly, I consider to be representative of rural America, 
and they have all said the same thing: H.R. 503 will lead to a 
miserable existence for thousands of horses and is an outright attack 
at animal agriculture.
  The care and the overall health of the animals, and notably the 
rights of their owners, should always be the primary concern when 
taking up legislation of this nature. Processing unmanageable and 
unwanted horses provides a humane alternative to continuing a

[[Page H6317]]

life of discomfort, inadequate care, or possibly even abandonment for 
thousands of horses.
  Mandatory United States Department of Agriculture inspection, which 
abides by strict laws monitoring the welfare of animals in the 
processing facility, assures that horses that are going to slaughter 
are treated humanely. It is also important to note that since last 
year's agriculture appropriations bill was enacted, the three American 
processing plants pay for those inspectors out of their own pockets. No 
expense to the taxpayer.
  I might say on this note that the proponents of the bill have said 
repeatedly that the Cattlemen's Association gets $3 for every horse 
that is taken to slaughter. That is a true statement. But the reason 
that $3 is paid is because it is the Cattlemen's Association, at least 
in Texas, that is actually paying for the inspectors to inspect the 
horses that are brought to the slaughterhouse in Texas. So that is why 
you have the $3-per-horse fee. It is because in last year's agriculture 
appropriations bill, we said that those inspectors could not be paid 
for with Federal funds; therefore, an arrangement has been made between 
the slaughterhouses in Texas and the Cattlemen's Association that the 
inspectors will be paid for by providing this fee to the Cattlemen's 
Association that pays the inspectors.
  H.R. 503 provides no alternative for thousands of horse owners for 
whom continued care of an animal is no longer economical or in some 
cases humane.
  The other concern the bill raises for me is one of private property 
rights. While a majority of my constituents live in the Arlington/Fort 
Worth area down in Texas, the geography of the district that I 
represent is almost entirely rural. Animal agriculture is a large part 
of the economy for much of my district, and agriculture is already one 
of the most extensively regulated industries in the United States of 
America.
  In the name of animal welfare, the United States Department of 
Agriculture right now tells owners how they can and cannot transport 
their animals. In the name of consumer safety, the United States 
Department of Agriculture right now tells them what they can and cannot 
feed their animals. This bill would tell producers to whom they can and 
cannot sell their horses. As a long-time proponent of limited 
government, I take issue with this last statement.
  The horse owners in question have fed, housed, and cared for their 
animals, in some cases for decades, at great personal expense. When an 
animal reaches the point when he or she is no longer productive for the 
owner, who are we then to deny an owner the opportunity to recover some 
small portion of their costs that they have incurred in caring for the 
animal so far in its life? Why should they not be allowed to sell their 
animal to a legal, humane, and closely regulated processing facility?
  Now, I understand that there are many groups that strongly support 
this particular bill and some of the thoroughbred associations are 
strongly in support of H.R. 503. If they have the money to pay for 
their horses, if they have the money to take care of their horses, that 
is fine. They do not have to take them to a slaughterhouse. That is 
freedom of choice. But for many ordinary Americans who do not have the 
resources that some of the more well-heeled thoroughbred associations 
and horse farms have, I think having a slaughterhouse option is a 
humane option.
  Again, I understand that this is an emotional issue for many people. 
But I do not think Congress should vote purely on emotion. I think 
there should be common sense brought into the equation. And when you 
really look at the bill in that light, the obvious vote, at least for 
me, is a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho will control the remainder of 
the time at the designation of the majority leader.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter 
Prevention Act, which would put an end to the deplorable practice of 
slaughtering American horses for consumption.
  As a strong supporter of animal rights, a horse lover, a former horse 
owner, I have joined with 202 of my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle as a cosponsor of H.R. 503. 550 national and State organizations 
also support H.R. 503, and I have received over 900 communications from 
constituents in support of the bill.
  Congress has already expressed its desire to put an end to horse 
slaughter by voting to amend the fiscal year 2006 agriculture 
appropriations bill to ban the practice. That amendment passed by an 
overwhelming vote of 269-158 in the House, 69-28 in the Senate. 
However, the language that passed in both the House and Senate stating 
that no Federal dollars could be used to fund the inspection of horse 
slaughter plants, thus ending the practice, was stripped out. The 
Republican leadership, in an act of hubris, changed the language in 
conference to allow for flexibility in interpretation of that ban and 
allowed the plants to continue to operate. This is going against 
congressional intent and has been taken to the courts.
  Congress voted to put an end to horse slaughter in this country 
because horses are some of the most beautiful and beloved domesticated 
animals on Earth. Earlier this year the story of Barbaro, the Kentucky 
Derby winner that shattered his leg at the start of the Preakness, 
transfixed millions of Americans. Since his injury, the thoroughbred 
has received an incredible outpouring of letters, flowers, apples, and 
carrots from Americans across the country. Fans have even made 
pilgrimages to Barbaro's care facility in Pennsylvania to wish him well 
in his long recovery. Americans are rooting for Barbaro because they 
have been inspired by his strength, his beauty, and his strong 
personality.
  Americans have long appreciated horses for transport, on ranches, as 
police mounts, and as cherished companions. The American Horse Council 
reports that 1.9 million Americans currently own horses. Another 7.1 
million Americans are involved in the industry as horse owners, service 
providers, employees, and volunteers, while tens of millions 
participate in horse events as spectators. These millions of Americans 
know that horses should be treated with dignity and respect in life and 
death. They are disgusted, as I am, that in 2005 over 90,000 horses 
were slaughtered at three American-based foreign-owned plants, and I 
stress foreign-owned plants, so that meat could be shipped to Europe 
and Asia for consumption as a delicacy.
  Horses bound for slaughter must endure inhumane conditions on the way 
to and during slaughter. Horses are shipped frequently for long 
distances in terrible conditions. They are crammed together in trucks 
built for cattle and pigs. Because of the cramped transport, they are 
often trampled and some horses arrive at the slaughterhouse seriously 
injured or dead. Once at the slaughterhouse, horses are often not 
rendered unconscious before they are killed, as mandated by Federal 
law.
  Most people assume that all or most of the horses bought for 
slaughter are old or injured. In fact, according to the USDA guidelines 
for handling and transporting equines for slaughter, 92.3 percent of 
horses that arrive at slaughter plants are in ``good'' condition, 
meaning they are not injured, lame, overweight, or underweight. Healthy 
animals, pets, and former race horses are all sent to slaughter.
  We may hear today that it is likened to being humane to animals in 
order to oppose this legislation. It could not be further from the 
truth. The humane vote is to vote in favor of this legislation to ban 
the inhumane slaughter of horses.
  Earlier I mentioned Barbaro, the Kentucky Derby winner. Ferdinand, 
the winner of the 1986 Derby, faced a very different fate. After his 
momentous Derby victory, Ferdinand was killed for food in a Japanese 
slaughterhouse in 2002. Just imagine if Barbaro faced the same end.
  Not surprisingly, a recent poll conducted by public opinion 
strategists found that 65 percent of Americans do not support horse 
slaughter, and 64 percent of Americans believe that horses

[[Page H6318]]

are companions like dogs and cats and killing a horse to eat is not 
different than killing a cat or dog to eat.
  I am sure that other Members of this body have received hundreds of 
letters too from constituents who oppose horse slaughter and support 
H.R. 503. I think it is time to listen to the American public and 
finally end the barbaric practice of horse slaughter by passing H.R. 
503. Let us not sign off on Barbaro burgers.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 503.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I submit for the Record an editorial from the Dallas Morning News and 
also an editorial from the Star-Telegram.

            A Humane End: Slaughter Prevents Wider Suffering

             [From the Dallas Morning News, Sept. 7, 2006]

       Few issues roil the emotions more than those involving the 
     dependent and helpless. Hence, the turbulent debate over a 
     proposal in Congress to end the legal slaughter of horses 
     that feed overseas meat markets.
       It's not right to dismiss or belittle the strongly held 
     beliefs of animal advocates on the matter. They argue that 
     the horse is a loyal service and companion animal that should 
     not end up on someone's dinner table. Indeed, most Americans' 
     sensibilities align with that view.
       But the grisly alternative to humane slaughter is a slow, 
     painful end for tens of thousands of castoff animals every 
     year.
       In a poignant irony, major veterinary groups are lined up 
     against a slaughter ban. They argue persuasively that enough 
     buyers or adoptive homes couldn't be found for all horses 
     deemed too old, unfit or expensive by their owners.
       Maintaining a horse for its natural life can exceed 
     $25,000, even short of veterinary care.
       The federal government, despite help from rescue 
     organizations, already fails to find homes for thousands of 
     wild horses culled each year from herds roaming national 
     grasslands. Think of boosting the number of unwanted animals 
     by the 60,000 to 100,000 horses that now go to slaughter 
     annually. That would recklessly invite widespread abandonment 
     and starvation.
       Two of the nation's three horse slaughterhouses are in 
     North Texas, the foreign-owned Dallas Crown in Kaufman and 
     Beltex in Fort Worth. It's a closely regulated business aimed 
     at humane treatment, from transport to euthanasia.
       Some slaughter opponents say a better end for unwanted 
     horses would be veterinarian-administered euthanasia. That 
     position ignores the pivotal issue of added cost for 
     rendering, incineration or burial.
       Exported horse meat heads primarily to Europe and Asia, 
     where no cultural taboo is attached to consumption. Top 
     consumers are mostly developing nations with a need for added 
     protein in the diet. Thus, the slaughtered horse makes a 
     final contribution to the cycle of life.
       In this country, at least, the law seeks to guarantee a 
     humane end, in keeping with the horse's honored place in 
     national lore. Congress should devote its energies toward 
     keeping things that way, thus avoiding the unwanted 
     consequence of needless suffering.
                                  ____


                [From the Star-Telegram, Sept. 1, 2006]

                            Siring Problems

       The federal bill grabbing the attention of horse lovers and 
     animal rights activists bans the ``shipping, transporting, 
     moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, 
     selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be 
     slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.''
       The ``other purposes'' aren't outlined in HR 503, which is 
     scheduled for a House vote on Thursday, but the result of 
     this bill's passage would be to shut down an industry that 
     provides a practical public service: disposal of the remains 
     of dead horses.
       It must be acknowledged up front that lots of Americans 
     will never be convinced that allowing the slaughter of horses 
     for sale as meat--for carnivores in zoos, canines at home or 
     connoisseurs in Cannes--is a public service.
       To some people, horses are more than ``mere property,'' as 
     Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the American Humane 
     Society, wrote in an Aug. 23 guest column. But as horse 
     breeder Jay Novacek rightly pointed out in the Aug. 21 column 
     that triggered Pacelle's response, not all horses are pets, 
     and not every horse owner has the financial resources to keep 
     a horse until it dies of natural causes and then pay to bury 
     or burn the carcass.
       Maintaining a horse until its natural death averages 
     $25,740 per animal, not including veterinary care for 
     sickness or injury, according to a June report (commissioned 
     by the Animal Welfare Council) about the consequences of a 
     horse slaughter ban. The average lifespan of a horse is 20 to 
     25 years.
       Pacelle is correct in that before Americans had trucks and 
     cars to deliver the mail and packages, horses were the common 
     mode of transportation. They were work animals. But 
     romanticizing those relationships as something other than 
     people appreciating the tools they needed to do their jobs is 
     an attempt to play every emotional note possible.
       Harkening back to a time when ``almost everyone knew how to 
     ride a horse'' reveals a nostalgia for a day when people had 
     few alternative forms of transportation other than their own 
     two feet. Pardon us for saying that we aren't anxious to 
     return to that chapter in history.
       One can respect and be grateful for the horse's role in 
     U.S. history without ignoring the pragmatic problems of what 
     to do with a dead or unwanted one.
       Shuttering the Beltex processing plant in Fort Worth won't 
     put an end to ``grim news'' for the estimated 70,000 to 
     100,000 American horses that are slaughtered annually unless 
     there's some way to cheat death for four-legged animals, or a 
     pipeline to 70,000 to 100,000 people financially capable of 
     caring for these animals.
       No matter how much their owners appreciate them, horses get 
     old and sick, and they die. Something has to be done with the 
     carcass. And the affordable ``something'' for tens of 
     thousands of people is the slaughterhouse. Incineration can 
     cost as much as $2,000, and lots of areas have ordinances 
     that make it illegal to bury Flicka in the back 40.
       If public health, humane treatment or nuisance issues are 
     discovered relating to the three horse processing plants 
     operating in the United States (two of them in Texas), it's 
     totally appropriate for government to address them. But U.S. 
     history books are rife with examples of bad laws resulting 
     from emotional appeals.
       If passed, HR 503 will not save one horse's life, nor will 
     it do anything to guarantee humane treatment for the animals.

  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives is voting today 
on an amendment to the Horse Protection Act that actually would 
irresponsibly endanger the welfare of the very animal that it purports 
to help. I oppose H.R. 503, which is driven by raw emotion and 
misinformation rather than by the facts. By eliminating the option of 
humane slaughter of the horses, the bill provides no directive as to 
what will happen to the 90,000 unwanted horses annually processed in 
our slaughter facilities. It increases the probability of unwanted 
horses becoming the victims of neglect, starvation, or abandonment. It 
criminalizes a legitimate and legal U.S. industry. It eliminates 
hundreds of U.S. jobs. It mandates costs estimated at $3 billion to $4 
billion on private citizens. And it creates far more problems than it 
actually solves.

                              {time}  1215

  It limits horse owners' choices for disposing of their animals, and 
it infringes on the owners' private property rights. Private property 
rights have long been held dear by the families and the land owners in 
the west, and for good reason. Their farms and ranches have been their 
livelihood and part of their national heritage since the frontier was 
closed and the west was settled.
  Not many months ago, many of my colleagues, most of those who are on 
the opposition side of this bill, on a bipartisan basis, rose in 
indignation at the Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, the City of New 
London, Connecticut decision, because it was taking private property 
rights.
  I have stood many times with many of those folks who are now 
proponents of this bill to protect intellectual private property 
rights. I see no difference. And like it or not, a horse is private 
property. They are not humans. They must be treated humanely and cared 
for appropriately. However, when a horse is no longer wanted or cannot 
be cared for, Congress should not be in the business of deciding how 
the animals can or cannot be disposed of.
  We fight for the protection of personal property rights and 
intellectual property rights, everything from dirt to ideas, Mr. 
Chairman. This is no different. I strongly encourage Members to oppose 
this misguided effort and continue preserving a strong tradition of 
private personal property rights in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I might consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill that is before 
us. When we all look at all of the important issues waiting for 
Congress to act on, I cannot understand why we are here wasting so much 
of our time on an issue that really has nothing to do with the pressing 
problems that are facing people in this country.
  But here we are today considering a bill that would effectively shut 
down three horse-processing facilities and

[[Page H6319]]

eliminate a reasonable option for horse owners who can no longer afford 
to care for their animals that are no longer productive.
  I understand that this issue is an emotional one for many people. But 
what other options are there for people who own aging horses that are 
no longer productive? It costs anywhere from, people tell me, $1,200 to 
$1,800 a year, some people say $2,300 a year. That is a lot of money 
for most people to care for an animal that has outlived its productive 
years.
  Some of these aging horses are sent to horse rescue facilities. While 
those facilities can provide a good home for aging horses, there are no 
Federal guarantees or standards of care that must be met. There is no 
guarantee that the horses at these facilities will be treated humanely. 
And this bill does not provide any money to help rescue facilities 
cover the additional costs that they will incur, and there is no way 
that we can accommodate all of the horses that will be abandoned if we 
pass this bill.
  While H.R. 503 outlaws slaughter for human consumption, the bill does 
not prohibit horses from being killed. Some supporters of this bill 
support euthanasia as an alternative to processing. However, 
euthanizing a horse is not cheap; it can cost anywhere from $300 to 
$2,000 an animal depending on the local rules for carcass disposal.
  Processing provides a cost effective and a humane alternative to 
neglect and abandonment when horse owners are unable to find another 
buyer. Caring for a horse properly is expensive, and it is time 
consuming. The real question of animal welfare lies in what will happen 
if the slaughter ban is imposed. These unwanted horses are often sick, 
unfit or problem animals. Many of them are already living in pain or 
discomfort, and tens of thousands more could be neglected, starved or 
abandoned if their owners no longer have processing available as an 
end-of-life option.
  If we pass this bill, we will ignore the fate of these animals who 
find their lives extended but without the necessary standards of care 
that they need and deserve. So at the end of the day, this bill is not 
about protecting horses from an untimely death; all it will do is limit 
the option of horse owners and burden them with additional costs of 
care and disposal.
  The House Agriculture Committee recognized the many weaknesses in 
this bill and voted to recommend that the House not pass this bill by a 
vote of 37-3.
  The Members of our committee represent agricultural areas around the 
country, areas where people own and use horses every day. We passed 
several amendments to this bill during our committee mark-up, but they 
are not included in the bill that we are considering here today.
  This shows a complete lack of respect for the expertise and the 
effort that the Agriculture Committee has contributed to this subject. 
At the end of the day, this debate is about defining what is humane 
when we are dealing with unwanted horses. Are we going to pass 
legislation that truly addresses the health and well being of animals, 
or are we going to pursue bills that amount to little more than window 
dressing in the name of animal welfare?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to set aside this emotionally 
charged issue and oppose this legislation that will tie the hands of 
horse owners around this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, some of us were late coming to the 
floor. I would like an explanation of the division of the time on this 
debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 981, as designees of the 
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) each were 
allocated 10 minutes.
  As designees of the minority leader, the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining on this side 
of the aisle at this point?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has 
10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. He has 10\1/2\ minutes because time was yielded to 
him.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The majority leader reallocated time.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are going to have a serious discussion that in 
my estimation is long overdue. Since 1979, Members of Congress, with 
the vast and substantial support of the American people, have tried to 
have this issue resolved.
  What I speak of is H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention 
Act. Mr. Peterson, my good friend, made what I think is one point I 
will agree with him on. This is a debate about what is humane. And 
despite the words and the rhetoric of the opponents of this 
legislation, the focus should be on the issue of what is humane and 
what the will of the people are, because what we are exposing today is 
a brutal, shadowy, shameful, predatory practice that borders on the 
perverse.
  Public opinion, as I said, is substantially in support. Every poll 
that I have seen, 70 percent of the American people want this practice 
banned and stopped, the practice of horse slaughter for human 
consumption, something culturally the United States has never accepted 
nor have any of the Indian territories within the United States.
  Editorials were recited a bit earlier, but I will give you some 
editorials. Today the Washington Post, with a diametrically different 
view of the world than the Washington Times, both editorialized saying 
that this practice should end. It reflects on our culture. It reflects 
on our priorities inappropriately and improperly.
  In California, a referendum was passed with 60 percent of the vote 
saying that that practice should be banned in California. And there is 
Texas law, and many other States have laws that ban the practice. What 
H.R. 503 does is it prohibits the shipping, the transporting, the 
moving, the delivering, the receiving, the purchasing, selling or 
donation of horses and other equines for slaughter for human 
consumption.
  What I really want to emphasize though is what this practice is. The 
opponents have said this is a humane process. The opponents have said 
that this is going to limit individuals' rights and individuals' 
property rights, none of that being true.
  What this is going to do is stop a practice that, first of all, is in 
violation of many State laws and, secondly, is not adhered to or 
supported by substantial populations, and it is brutal.
  This picture here, this is a horse's head. This is a horse's head 
that was discovered in transport to one of the slaughter houses. What 
we have here are three slaughter house factories, two in Texas, one in 
Illinois, both operating with substantial local opposition and 
presenting substantial environmental and economic problems to those 
communities.
  What we have are horses from all over the country, thousands of miles 
away, transported in cramped cattle or pig trailers or trucks. Not 
designed or built for horses, not designed to transport horses. They 
are often purchased in a predatory fashion by killer-buyers who do not 
disclose what the purpose of their purchase is going to be, who, as I 
said, operate in a shadowy way.
  They bring these beautiful animals those thousands of miles in these 
cramped conditions with all different types of horses cramped in, 
despite USDA regulations that say you cannot transport them that way. 
The irony, Mr. Chairman, is on the day the Agriculture Committee marked 
up its bill, a bill which the amendments will be to the floor in a 
little while, all meant to continue that practice, to kill H.R. 503; on 
the very day they were marking up that bill, an arrest was made in 
Mississippi of one of those predatory killer-buyers who had 20-25 
horses in his care. He stopped because he got a flat tire. And the 
owner of the service station he stopped at saw the condition, the 
condition of these animals, and

[[Page H6320]]

called the police, thus allowing us to finally enforce the law.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill because USDA has not done 
their job. In fact, they have been on the other side of the issue 
consistently. They surreptitiously overturned Congressional action last 
year. Ms. Schakowsky pointed that out earlier. We need to bring an end 
to this practice because it says too much about us.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 15 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I am an original cosponsor of this bill, 
along with Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Sweeney. This bill is to prevent the 
violent practice of slaughtering horses for human consumption. Why are 
we offering it?
  If you have grown up with horses, you know why we are offering it. 
They are as close to human as any animal you can get. Why are we 
offering it? Because there are three foreign-owned slaughter houses, 
just three, in the United States where these horses are slaughtered, 
various means, jacking them up by their hind legs, slitting their 
throats.
  Why does this practice continue? So that these slaughter houses can 
keep a steady flow of horse meat to the dinner tables and meat markets, 
not in the United States, but of Asia and Europe where horse meat is 
still eaten. Americans do not even eat horse meat.
  The Horse Slaughter Prevention Act before us today, if passed into 
law, will simply end this practice once and for all across the entire 
United States.
  The opponents of this bill have come up with a number of objections, 
reasons they think it is a bad idea. First of all, they would have us 
believe that this is a first step down a slippery slope. That next will 
come cows and then hogs and then chickens and then other animals 
consumed by Americans.
  But the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act does nothing of the kind, and 
it will not lead in that direction, because horses are unique and 
distinct. We all know that.
  Second, the opponents claim that banning horse slaughter will result 
in an overpopulation of horses in this country. Once again, this is not 
true. There are currently three slaughter houses in the United States 
in two States. In five States, including California, a law banning 
horse slaughter has been in effect for 7 years. What has been the 
effect? There have been no effects. There have not been animals that 
are left derelict. There haven't been animals that are not buried. 
There have not been too few euthanasias.
  Practically speaking, in all five States where this law is already 
the law of the land, there has been no effect whatsoever.
  Each year, about 90,000 horses are slaughtered. So there is no real 
impact in a country as large as the United States in the disposing of 
those 90,000 horses by means other than horse meat slaughtering.
  Third and finally, our opponents have touted letters from cattlemen 
and chicken farmers and all sorts of livestock raisers who say they 
oppose the bill.
  We have and we will gladly display to anyone who wants to see it a 
seven-page memorandum, single spaced, of supporters all over the 
country who know horses, who love horses; they are horse raisers, horse 
racers, horse lovers, you name it. Everybody has signed on to this 
saying it is time we do something like this.

                              {time}  1230

  Last year, when it appeared that the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act 
would never get its day on the House floor, Mr. Sweeney and Mr. 
Whitfield and I offered an amendment to the House ag appropriations 
bill to ban Federal funding to facilitate horse slaughter for 1 year. 
That amendment drew 269 votes in support; 269 Members passed it by a 
substantial majority. I hope that today my colleagues will remember the 
vote they cast last year and will see fit to end the brutal practice of 
killing horses and will vote not only for the bill but against all 
amendments because they would only debilitate and defeat the bill.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and thank him for 
taking on this battle with others.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter 
Prevention Act. I oppose the cruel and senseless slaughter of American 
horses for human consumption in the United States or for foreign 
markets. I just think we should not be allowing this.
  Last year, more than 90,000 American horses were either slaughtered 
in one of three foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the U.S. or shipped to 
Canada or Mexico for slaughter.
  Horses have never been raised for human consumption in America. This 
slaughter is done for export.
  Legislation is necessary because the Department of Agriculture is 
blatantly circumventing clear congressional intent on horse slaughter 
in last year's fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
  This legislation would prohibit the transportation, possession and 
sale of horses to be slaughtered for human consumption in the U.S. It 
does not remove the rights of owners to do what they want with their 
horses.
  Under H.R. 503, owners can humanely euthanize sick, dangerous, or old 
horses. Horses can continue to be kept by their owners, can be sold to 
a new home, or placed in one of the many horse sanctuaries located 
across the country.
  The way a society treats its animals, particularly horses, speaks to 
the core values and priorities of its citizens. Horses are not just 
companions and recreational animals. They are a vital part of our 
Nation's culture and history.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation 
and oppose all amendments aimed to weaken it.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), a real rancher, 
horse owner and outstanding member of the House Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota.
  I have been a farmer and rancher all of my life, still live on the 
original family farmstead that my great great grandfather settled back 
in 1860. Horses have been a real part of the way we do business on the 
Salazar ranch. As a matter of fact, we still use horses to round up 
cattle and move them from pasture to pasture.
  I know that H.R. 503 is a well-intended act, but if it becomes law, 
it will have very poor results.
  The act will seriously, in my opinion, compromise horse welfare. 
Under this bill, care must be potentially provided for the additional 
90,000 horses that are going to be out there annually.
  It will eliminate a humane end-of-life option for horse owners and 
force them to send their horses out to already overcrowded rescue 
centers or sentence them to live out their final years in suffering.
  Processing provides a cost-effective alternative to neglect and 
abandonment when horse owners are unable to find another buyer. It is 
not such a problem out in rural areas, but it is a major problem in 
urban areas.
  In 2005 alone, it saved owners and rescue facilities an estimated 
$220 million in total costs of caring for unwanted horses.
  The Animal Welfare council estimated that cumulative annual 
maintenance costs of otherwise processed horses since the year 2000 
would have exceeded more than $513 million in 2005. It would cost 
$1,900 per year to house each unwanted and abandoned horse, not 
including veterinary or farrier services. It will cost $127 million in 
the first year to properly care for these animals if this legislation 
is enacted.
  Who will pay for this cost? You will pay for the cost in the end. 
These facilities do not receive public money at the moment; but I can 
assure you that if these horses become a nuisance, you, the taxpayer, 
will end up paying for their care.
  H.R. 503 does not specify who will bear the costs of the ban if this 
ban is

[[Page H6321]]

implemented. What will happen to the management tools the Bureau of 
Land Management has to manage the wildlife of wild horse bans out in 
the western United States? If this bill is enacted, none of these 
horses who are unwanted, and although BLM does try to auction them off 
or to give them to pet owners, what will happen to those horses? What 
will happen when I am out riding, rounding up my cattle and my horse 
falls into a prairie dog hole and breaks his leg? Will I then not be 
able to send him to some rendering facility? What will happen or what 
is the next step? Will people take away our right to be able to go out 
and hunt elk? Is that the next step?
  I know that H.R. 503 is a well-intended act, but it will have very 
serious consequences on our agricultural community. I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose the ban of horse slaughter and to vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 503.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of my colleague and his 
sentiments, and I need to make a couple of points because there is a 
substantial skewing of the record here.
  First of all, in 1989, 350-some-odd thousand horses were slaughtered. 
We have that number down to below 90,000. That is 1 percent of the 
horse population that is put down every year.
  Secondly, the gentleman says that this will preclude an option for 
putting down his horse if his horse becomes lame. I would make two 
points. One is that 90-plus percent of the horses that are sent to 
slaughter facilities are rated by the USDA as being healthy and strong 
and fit animals.
  So this is not about putting down animals, and if you have that 
problem, there still are humane procedures. You can go to a local vet 
and have your local vet for $50 to $250 oversee the process of putting 
your animal down.
  Frankly, this bill does not stop an owner from putting a horse down 
themselves by any means.
  This bill prohibits the public transportation of that. This bill 
prohibits the slaughter for human consumption at these three 
facilities.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I have been around horses all of my entire 
life. Do you consider the slaughtering of animals such as beef 
inhumane?
  Mr. SWEENEY. This is not about that. This is about horses which are 
in a special place. This is about a practice that is profusely out of 
whack with the standards of America.
  Reclaiming my time, I want to talk about the slaughter facilities 
themselves. These houses do not contribute to this economy. In his 
written testimony during the committee hearings on H.R. 503, Dick 
Koehler, vice president of Beltex Corp., a slaughter plant in Fort 
Worth, Texas, described the horse slaughter industry as a tax-paying 
legitimate business. Yet witnesses at that same hearing revealed tax 
returns showing that Dallas Crown, Inc., based in Kaufman, Texas, made 
$12 million in revenue 1 year and paid only $5 in U.S. taxes.
  The U.S. exports 18,000 tons of horse meat, netting $65 million in 
2005; and the profits went back to the countries of the owners of those 
plants. Two of them are from Belgium. One of them is from France.
  There are costs to the local economies. It is a practice that is 
abhorrent and that is not supported.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 503; and 
like many of my colleagues, I have been around horses all my life. I am 
a former horse owner and my father had a farm. The humane vote is to 
vote ``yes'' on H.R. 503.
  I thank my colleagues, Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Spratt and Ms. Schakowsky, 
for their really outstanding leadership and for clarifying the points 
that have been so made in this debate.
  Over 90,000 horses were brutally slaughtered last year at three 
foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the United States, and their meat was 
then shipped to countries in Europe and Asia for human consumption. 
Americans do not eat horse meat. They love horses. They are cherished 
companions. They are sporting animals. They are not food.
  If you look at the history of America, horses have played such an 
important part in our Nation's development, and I would say they are 
probably the most beloved animals native to the United States.
  The American people strongly support banning horse slaughter. They 
recognize that it is a deplorable practice that needs to end.
  Over 70 percent have expressed this opinion in opposition to 
slaughtering horses for human consumption. Again, no American would eat 
horse meat. This is to be shipped to a foreign country, and they are 
slaughtered in a gruesome manner, as my colleague pointed out on the 
floor.
  While it is technically required that horses be unconscious prior to 
slaughter, the method used to render them unconscious is not effective 
due to a horse's instinctive flight response to stress. As a result, 
the horses are sometimes conscious while being slaughtered. This is 
unconscionable.
  I call upon my colleagues for a humane vote and to vote ``yes'' on 
this bill.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear in a little while that there is 
substantial support in the ag community and other places, and I will 
grant that there is substantial opposition to this bill, as well as 
substantial support, within 500 horse organizations.
  But what I find most sad and in a way ironic is that an organization 
like the American Veterinary Medical Association opposes this 
legislation when employees of a slaughter plant blatantly do not follow 
the AVMA procedure for slaughtering a horse.
  Again, an important notion to understand is that slaughter is not the 
same as humane euthanasia by a qualified veterinarian. Euthanasia, 
according to AVMA, is an act of inducing humane death that is 
respectful and is painless and as distress free as possible.
  Yet we saw in that picture, that was transport, that was not even 
slaughter. That was a horse in transport. Horses suffer horribly on the 
way to and during slaughter, where they often endure repeated blows to 
the head and upper body before being hoisted up for slaughter, 
sometimes still conscious. That is not euthanasia.
  Slaughter is markedly different than acceptable forms of euthanasia. 
The AVMA requires that a captive bolt method must be administered by 
trained, skilled and monitored personnel and that the horse must be 
adequately restrained. These requirements are typically not met in 
equine slaughter plants, thus raising significant welfare concerns.
  Let me say something about the plants, too. One of the issues raised 
is that you are going to shut these plants down and people are going to 
lose their jobs. We are talking about something in the range of 150 
employees. To my friends on my side of the aisle who talk all the time 
about how we have got to be tough on immigration, I suggest to you that 
a substantial number of those workers are not in this country under 
legal means. They are low-level laborers. It is the only people they 
could find to do this.
  I would also inform my colleagues that all three of these facilities, 
all three of these facilities operate and slaughter for other means, 
other livestock, and that they could simply go to that business. This 
is a practice that is not adhered to or supported.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would point out that the two largest horse associations in the 
United States, the American Quarter Horse Association and the American 
Paint Horse Association, are opposed to this bill, and they represent 
the biggest number of horse owners in the country. So people need to 
understand that.
  I wondered if Mr. Sweeney would yield on the points he was making. I 
wanted to ask him a question.

[[Page H6322]]

  You know, you keep talking about the way they are treated as they are 
hauled to slaughter. As I understand it, in this bill, there are no 
requirements put on so that, if you are hauling these animals to a 
rescue facility, there is no regulation or any kind of requirements put 
on anybody to haul them to those rescue facilities. So what have you 
accomplished?
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Well, there are requirements for the transport under 
USDA. The problem is USDA does not enforce those requirements.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 more 
minute.
  But, you know, nothing will change under this bill.
  Mr. SWEENEY. I would suggest, Mr. Peterson, that people who are 
rescuing horses have a different mindset and intent than those who are 
slaughtering for human consumption.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I am not sure that is the case, because 
you are going to have 90,000 horses, and you are going to have people 
rescuing them basically under duress because they are not going to know 
what to do with them.
  In my part of the world, we already have people letting horses out, 
out in the country, just like dogs and cats, because we don't have a 
processing facility close enough to us. It is a huge problem.
  Mr. SWEENEY. And 20 percent of the horse population, in reporting 
data out of California and everywhere else, suggests absolutely the 
opposite.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Well, they are hauling them to Texas 
because there is a processing facility.
  The only point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that some of 
these issues they are claiming they are going to solve with this bill 
are not going to be solved. They are actually going to create more 
problems.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2\1/
4\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the 
chairman of the Livestock Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503. This is a bill 
that has tremendous shortcomings, will cause major negative disruptions 
throughout the horse industry and lacks any strategy of how to deal 
with the problems that it will undoubtedly create.
  The bill is based on emotion. If you stop to think about what will 
happen to these 60,000 to 90,000 horses being diverted from processing 
each year, you will realize the bill does not provide a single answer 
to truly the problem.
  I find it deeply troubling that the sponsors of H.R. 503 care more 
about what happens to the animal after it is euthanized than what 
happens when it is alive. If these animals are no longer able to be 
processed at federally regulated plants, where will these horses go? 
Yes, these animals will be alive, but if it is a life of negative 
abuse, abandonment and starvation, what good have we served? We want to 
make sure all these animals are cared for humanely throughout their 
life.
  Owning a horse is a privilege that should be taken seriously. Horses 
are high maintenance animals that require feed, water, veterinary care 
and safekeeping. The care of horses is expensive. The Animal Welfare 
Council estimates it costs $2,340 per year per horse. Public animal 
rescue facilities and horse sanctuaries across the country are 
currently saturated with unwanted horses and in desperate need of 
funds. Even the proponents of this bill have acknowledged this fact. 
How does adding thousands more horses help this already dismal 
situation?
  H.R. 503 does not provide a single answer to ensure the proper care 
of these animals. Where will these animals go? How will we fund their 
care? How do we ensure they are not starved and abandoned? Why should 
we burden our local communities with problems created by this bill?
  More than 200 reputable horse organizations, animal health 
organizations and agricultural organizations oppose this legislation, 
and they represent some of the most respected and knowledgeable people 
who own and care for horses in the United States. In my home State, the 
North Carolina Horse Council, Quarter Horse Association, the North 
Carolina Department of Ag and Consumer Services, the North Carolina 
Farm Bureau, the North Carolina Pork Council and the North Carolina 
Cattlemen's Association all oppose this legislation and the precedent 
it would set for other livestock.
  If you look at the facts and not the emotional hype, I believe the 
choice here is really quite simple. My stand against H.R. 503 is a 
stand for the humane treatment of these animals. I urge my colleagues 
to do the right things for horses and horse owners. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 
503.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
whip, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman. This is about politics not 
policy. The policy, I am going to support. This is about politics. It 
is about the election of one Member in a very hotly contested race in 
New York.
  I hope the American public are tuned in. With all the pressing 
critical issues that confront our Nation, what is the one issue in the 
one-fifteenth of the session that we have left that we are according 
our time to? The Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This is an important 
issue that should be considered. I do not mean to make light of the 
legislation. But is this the issue that the American people expect 
their elected representatives to be considering at this moment?
  On Monday, we commemorate the fifth anniversary of the worst 
terrorist attack in our Nation's history. 9/11 is a day of remembrance 
and resolve, and it is also a time to recognize that we are not as safe 
as we should be. Apparently, horses aren't either. But people aren't as 
safe as they should be.
  Just today, a former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, 
wrote, and I quote, ``Five years have passed since the horrific attack 
on our homeland, and still there is one serious undeniable fact we have 
yet to confront. We are today,'' said the former Speaker, Newt 
Gingrich, ``not where we wanted to be and nowhere near where we need to 
be.''
  Yet one-fifteenth of the time we have left before the election is 
spent on horses. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. This Congress 
has failed to enact the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. The nuclear 
threat from North Korea and Iran has increased. Afghanistan is 
backsliding, and Iraq simmers in a low-grade civil war, yet we are 
focused on this act.
  Last week, I joined more than 20 of my Democratic colleagues in 
visiting New Orleans and the gulf coast, areas devastated by Hurricane 
Katrina 1 year ago. We observed incredible courage and optimism on the 
part of the citizens there, but we all saw an area that is still a 
shell of its former self.
  In New Orleans, nearly 60 percent of homes and businesses do not have 
electricity. Much of New Orleans lacks a dependable supply of potable 
water, and only $44 billion of the $110 billion appropriated for 
rebuilding assistance to victims has been spent. Yet what are we doing 
today? Focusing on horses.
  This bill was defeated 37-3 in committee. The Patient's Bill of 
Rights, cosponsored by Mr. Dingell, was supported by the majority of 
this House and the majority of the Senate, and it died in conference, 
for political reasons. This bill here is for political reasons.
  While this body considers this legislation today, the Republican 
leadership refuses to allow an up-or-down vote on providing a long 
overdue increase for the minimum wage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, the chairman of the committee, soon to 
be, maybe. Who knows. Mr. Goodlatte, I apologize for that.
  The Republican leadership refuses to allow an up-or-down vote on the 
minimum wage. And that is not about horses; it is about 6.6 million 
Americans working every day and living in poverty. I have concern about 
these horses, but I have much, much more concern about 6.6 million 
Americans who are living in poverty while working 40-hour weeks.
  We have still not passed legislation that moves our Nation towards 
energy independence, yet we focus on horses.

[[Page H6323]]

  Reforms are broken in the immigration system, yet we focus on horses.
  We have not addressed the fact that 46 million Americans do not have 
health insurance, yet we focus on horses.
  We need fixes to the Republicans' flawed prescription drug program 
and reforms to our convoluted tax system, yet we focus on horses. I am 
concerned about horses, but I am much, much more concerned about the 
American people. That is what we ought to be focused on. That's where 
we ought to be paying attention.
  That is why I call this the ``do less than `do-nothing Congress of 
1948.'''
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say on behalf of this Congress that we did pass 
an energy bill. We did pass a prescription drug bill. We did pass a 
bill to expedite refinery building in this country. We did pass an 
outer continental shelf exploration bill. And we would have had this 
bill on the floor 2, 3, 4 years ago if the Ag Committee had been 
willing to cooperate with us.
  But to talk about this business of horse slaughter, I think the 
American people have every right to know what this business is really 
all about. It is a secretive, illicit and grossly inhumane business. 
Now, you listen to the members of the Ag Committee and the Department 
of Agriculture, and they talk about the transportation of these animals 
as regulated and that there is no ill will coming to these animals.
  I have a picture here of a horse that was transported from 
Mississippi to Texas to Beltex on August 10, 2006. Now, if you look, I 
will show you that picture, and then I want to show you this picture. 
Now, the reason this happened is because a killer buyer by the name of 
Robbie Solomon from Belmont, Mississippi, put 17 stallions in one 
trailer.
  Now, Mr. Salazar was here talking about his knowledge of horses, and 
I am sure he is quite knowledgeable, but anyone knows that you do not 
put stallions together. And the only way they were able to keep them 
from fighting was to beat these animals. This is going on all across 
the country because the USDA is not enforcing the transportation 
regulations.
  And so when we talk about slaughter, we are not talking about the 
actual slaughter of the horse per se; we are talking about the horse 
theft involved. We are talking about the killer buyers getting animals 
any way they can get them. We are talking about them putting them in 
trailers like this and transporting horses.
  I find it so interesting that the American Association of Equine 
Practitioners, the leadership, and the leadership of the American 
Quarter Horse Association talk about their concern for these horses. 
They are looking out for their welfare, yet they see nothing wrong with 
the method of transport, the double-deck trailers being used, where 
horses full grown cannot even stand up straight on the upper deck.
  Just think, stallions put together. You never do that. And that is 
precisely what Mr. Robbie Solomon of Belmont, Mississippi, did. So I 
did want to point out exactly what is going on in this transportation 
of these animals to slaughter, and this is not something that is 
uncommon.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. In Nebraska, we have 
a great many horses that are used for roping, cutting horses, riding 
horses and quarter horses. Not many racehorses. These horses are 
primarily for a function, and when a horse can no longer fulfill that 
function, something has to happen to the horse. Now, you can retire the 
horse and pay $2,000, $3,000 a year to house it, to feed it and to take 
care of it, but some people that own 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 horses simply 
cannot afford to do that.
  So I have been hearing from a great many horse owners, and these are 
people who care about horses, who love horses and who are concerned 
about horses, who have working ranches, and they say this is a bill 
that they cannot live with because of the cost. So I think we have to 
look at that.
  I certainly don't tolerate and don't condone any shipment that is, as 
has been mentioned, injurious. We don't want to see that. But we have 
to have some way, because this will decrease the value of the average 
horse about $300 simply because of the burial fees and the extra costs 
of taking care of horses.
  So this is not a solution to the problem. The people in my area 
oppose it, and I would strongly urge we defeat the bill.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the Dean of the House, the ranking member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, my good friend, John Dingell.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I love the people who are pushing this bill, but it is a bad bill. It 
is triumph of emotion over common sense. We have before us a solution, 
a poor one, to a nonexistent problem.
  We have many things that need to be addressed in this Congress, but 
here we are putting on the floor a piece of legislation poorly thought 
out, without having had proper hearings or proceedings, over the 
opposition of a committee, when we have many other things that need 
doing; health care for Americans, minimum wage, a budget deficit of 
terrifying proportions, and the appropriations bills and the budget 
have not yet been completed. While the Nation is at war, working 
families struggle to make ends meet, and government runs record 
deficits the leadership has put this curious piece of legislation on 
the floor.
  The bill would eliminate humane slaughter of horses. If there is a 
complaint about how the horses are being slaughtered or transported, 
there is a way for this body to address that, and I am sure in good 
will this body would in the exercise of its oversight powers do exactly 
that.
  The bill does not count for the high cost of caring for these 
unwanted animals, nor does it consider the impact that this legislation 
is going to have on the environment.

                              {time}  1300

  You know, we have a curious situation where we are going to have to 
wind up cremating every horse that dies in the country, or we are going 
to have to incinerate them. I have no idea how we are going to dispose 
of a huge number of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds of horse each time one of 
these events happens.
  Now, basic care costs $1,800. There is no requirement here that a 
person sell or slaughter his horse. The owner of the horse can do what 
he wants with it. That makes eminent good sense to me.
  But I don't think anyone has thought out the consequences of this 
legislation, what is going to happen with regard to the massive number 
of horses that are going to have to be incinerated or cremated and the 
consequences of that with regard to the environment.
  This is a bad piece of legislation. It should be rejected.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
allowing me the 3 minutes on this particular issue.
  I think much has been said, but I think if we look at it as 
legislators, our profession, our duties and our service to our 
constituents, what is it that we do? We pass laws that reflect the 
standards, the norms and the mores of American society.
  It is already acknowledged, and I think even the opponents of this 
piece of legislation that I support here today would acknowledge we 
have already established a norm and a standard, and that is in this 
country we will not destroy a horse for human consumption. That is a 
done deal, that is recognized, and it is based on the historical 
significance of the horse in our society, which is very unique.
  Now, this is the question that I pose: How can you prohibit the human 
consumption of a product, that is the law, that is the norm, that is 
the standard, that is the American value, without prohibiting the 
production of the product? And that is what this piece of legislation 
accomplishes. It is not a difficult legislative equation.

[[Page H6324]]

  And there will be consequences, but consequences that can be dealt 
with responsibly by the horse owner. And I truly believe that. I am 
from the State of Texas, and we have a few horses in Texas. My brother 
owns horses. Now, does he agree with me on this particular piece of 
legislation, because it may prove to be inconvenient and pose some 
economic cost to him? I am not really sure. But this is in keeping with 
what we have already established, and that is how we treat horses in 
our society.
  Now, we have individuals that will say this is about property rights. 
Members of Congress, please. We pass laws every day that regulate the 
manner that we conduct ourselves with pieces of property, personal and 
real. We have zoning laws. We have ordinances. And this is just another 
aspect of that, in keeping, though, with what has already been 
established as societal norms, and that is what we do here today.
  People will simply say, but it is not about consumption of horse meat 
in the United States, that we are just simply going to cater to the 
culinary needs of the French. That is not the point. The point is that 
you still have everything that entails the entire process of how you 
prepare, how you slaughter the horse for human consumption. Whether it 
is domestic or internationally, it is not in keeping with the 
established norms and values as reflected in our laws, State and 
Federal, when it comes to the treatment of horses.
  The bottom line is we have to sometimes tweak existing laws to make 
sure that they reflect those mores and that value, and that is what we 
are doing here today.
  We cannot condone the slaughter of horses for human consumption.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to address one issue that the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan raised, and we all have great 
admiration and respect for the gentleman from Michigan. He raised the 
question about how are we going to take care of all these horses that 
are not slaughtered when they die and the impact of those animals on 
the environment.
  I would remind the body that there are 133 million cows in America 
today. Every year many of them die out in the fields. Some of them are 
picked up by renderers and processed, but many of them are drug to the 
back 40 where they are decomposed, eaten by scavengers and whatever. 
The same thing would happen to horses that die out in the fields.
  In my State of Kentucky, only about 40 percent of the animals that 
die in the fields are picked up by renderers. This bill would not 
affect what happens to natural death to animals in the field in any way 
whatsoever.
  I would remind the body that only 1 percent of the entire horse 
population in America, which is about 9 million, is being slaughtered. 
Less than that. I also would like to reiterate, once again, we have 
heard so much about unwanted horses. I would say to you, many of these 
horses being slaughtered are not unwanted, there is not anything wrong 
with them. Many of them are stolen and obtained by misrepresentation. 
So to leave the impression that every horse slaughtered is old, 
decrepit, unwanted, is certainly not what the facts show.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that 
that is 1 percent of the horses per year, 90,000 or 1 percent of the 9 
million per year. The average life expectancy of a horse is over 25 
years. So about 25 percent of the horses go through this process in 
this country, and we will have a huge problem if we don't resolve that, 
if we pass this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding 
and for leading this cause.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 503. H.R. 503, the Horse Protection Act, 
would ban the processing of horses for human consumption. There is no 
evidence that suggests that products derived from horses pose any food 
safety or public health risk. Because processing facilities process 
meat intended for interstate shipment, they must be inspected by USDA 
for compliance with the Horse Slaughter Act, the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act, and other Federal animal health and food safety 
regulations.
  The people who want this bill passed claim that horses are not raised 
for meat. However, there are at least three breeds that are raised for 
meat: the Yili, the Altai and the Bashkir, among others, that are 
raised for dual purposes.
  Every year, 80,000 to 100,000 of these horses are abandoned in the 
U.S., and this number is expected to double in just a few years. But 
there are no provisions to address disposal or care of the unwanted 
100,000 horses.
  When horses are euthanized on private lands, it is normally done with 
a heavy dose of barbiturates. Once that horse succumbs to the 
barbiturates, the carcass becomes an environmental concern. And if the 
horse is disposed of on private land, we have to be concerned about the 
issues that lead to contamination, human exposure to zoonotic disease 
and related problems.
  The individuals who support H.R. 503 and argue unwanted horses can be 
moved to adoption facilities or resold are selling us short on the 
resources. The total take capacity for all these facilities is 6,000 
head; 6,000 head. These facilities are already at overcapacity. Where 
would the additional 100,000 horses go? I would add that is a 
cumulative total of perhaps a 10-year rolling total of 100,000 a year. 
It may be 1 million horses. But these horses are eating our cellulose 
and costing us ethanol.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I want to address this unwanted horse issue again. 
Everyone keeps talking about slaughter as the answer to unwanted 
horses. Has anyone ever thought about the responsibility of the 
breeders that are breeding these horses?
  The one horse industry association that most advocates horse 
slaughter is the American Quarter Horse Association. That is because 
they are the most prolific breeders in the country. They are 
registering 144,000 foals a year, compared to 32,000 thoroughbreds, 
12,000 standardbreds.
  Has anyone ever asked the question, what is the responsibility of the 
breeder? And for them to have the audacity to come to the Congress and 
say you have to pay us if you pass this bill to take care of all these 
horses that we are breeding every year.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Chairman, I just wanted to say, unless I don't know something 
here, I don't believe it is illegal to consume horse meat in the United 
States. If you want to shoot your horse and butcher it and eat it, you 
can do it. So people need to understand that, number one.
  Number two, I am in receipt of a letter here from Ron DeHaven, who is 
the administrator of APHIS, and I would just like to make folks aware 
of this, that contrary to what has been said, they have enforcement 
going on in terms of the transport of horses.
  There are 187 cases that have been opened since 2002. They have 
issued 69 warnings. Eighty-one cases remain open. Three of those are 
being investigated. Seventy-eight are on final review. Twenty-one cases 
included stipulations. There have been fines anywhere from several 
hundred dollars to $60,000 for violation of humane transport 
requirements. One case is currently being adjudicated by an 
administrative law judge requesting that the violator submit $85,000 in 
penalties.
  APHIS says that they take very seriously their responsibility to 
ensure safe and humane transport of horses to slaughter. So they have 
been trying to enforce this law; and if there is problems going on, you 
ought to get a hold of APHIS and do what they should do.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just to respond to the gentleman from Kentucky, who asks a very good 
question about the responsibility of horse owners and horse breeders, I 
guess my question to the gentleman is, why doesn't his bill contain any 
provisions to prevent the creation of unwanted horses? That is one of 
the principal objections that these respected

[[Page H6325]]

national organizations have to this legislation, is that he does not 
address that in his bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walter Jones.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Kentucky.
  Madam Chairman, I decided I wanted to come to the floor today and not 
share my thoughts on this issue, but the thoughts of an American 
citizen. This lady lives in Carlinville, Illinois. She wrote me a 
letter on Saturday, and I was so impressed with the letter that I 
called this lady yesterday, Mrs. Betty Scheldt. I asked permission that 
I might read two paragraphs from her letter that I think speaks to this 
issue.
  First: ``Horses are an integral part of the American culture and I am 
extremely distressed over the fact that our horses, icons of our 
culture, are being slaughtered in foreign-owned slaughterhouses to 
please the palates of wealthy gourmets in Belgium and France. Horse 
slaughter and human consumption of horse meat is not and never will be 
acceptable in American culture. Americans overwhelmingly agree that 
horse slaughter should be banned. Several national voter surveys reveal 
that 77 percent to 90 percent of Americans feel that horses in the 
United States are not bred, raised or produced as food stock, and as 
such should be afforded the same protection from commercial slaughter 
as are all other non-food producing animals.
  The last paragraph: ``Horses are our companions and partners. They 
carry our children in competition at the county 4-H fair, make our 
country proud in the Olympic games, win Kentucky Derbys and Triple 
Crowns, carried our soldiers into battle and helped our forefathers to 
settle this country. They deserve better than ending up served on the 
plates of fancy restaurants from Belgium and Paris.''
  Madam Chairman, I join my colleagues today who support H.R. 503, and 
I hope and pray that this Congress will pass this legislation because 
horses are part of the history of this Nation and the West would never 
have been settled if it had not been for the horses working with the 
American citizens to build America.

                                                September 1, 2006.
     Subject: Please vote for H.R. 503 as originally introduced.

     Hon. Walter Jones, Jr.
     U.S. Representative,
     Greenville, NC.
       Dear Representative Jones: I am writing to urge you to vote 
     for H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, as 
     originally introduced by Representatives John Sweeney (R-NY), 
     John Spratt (D-SC) and Ed Whitfield (R-KY). This bill would 
     prohibit permanently the slaughter of horses for human 
     consumption overseas, as well as the exportation of 
     horseflesh and live horses intended for slaughter, making 
     sure that no American horse is slaughtered abroad.
       Over the past 20 years, due to ever increasing public 
     awareness of the trade of horses for human consumption, the 
     vast majority of plants that slaughter horses are no longer 
     in operation. However, 3 foreign owned and operated horse 
     slaughter plants still operate in our country today despite 
     overwhelming objection by the majority of Americans. The meat 
     produced in these plants is sent to certain European and 
     Asian countries where it is considered a delicacy.
       Horses are an integral part of the American culture and I 
     am extremely distressed over the fact that our horses, icons 
     of our culture, are being slaughtered in foreign-owned 
     slaughterhouses to please the palates of wealthy gourmets in 
     Belgium and France. Horse slaughter and human consumption of 
     horse meat is not, and never will be, acceptable in American 
     culture. Americans overwhelmingly agree that horse slaughter 
     should be banned. Several national voter surveys reveal that 
     77%-94% of Americans feel that horses in the United States 
     are not bred, raised or produced as food-stock, and as such 
     should be afforded the same protection from commercial 
     slaughter as are all other non-food producing animals.
       The slaughter process is inhumane: Horses endure repeated 
     blows to the head with stunning equipment that does not 
     render the animals unconscious and many horses are still 
     conscious during the remaining stages of the process. The 
     transportation of these horses to the slaughter plants is 
     also cruel and inhumane since they are hauled several 
     thousand miles without water, food or rest in double-deck 
     trailers, forcing them to travel in a bent position which can 
     result in prolonged suffering and death.
       Arguments from the AVMA and AAEP defending the ``humanity' 
     of horse slaughter arc simply ludicrous. To suggest that a 
     process in which horses endure repeated blows and are often 
     slaughtered while conscious is somehow humane is not only 
     absurd but also shows a total disregard towards the welfare 
     of the animals these two organizations claim to protect.
       I strongly disagree with the claims of the horse slaughter 
     industry that it provides a way to dispose of old and ailing 
     horses. This is simply not true: According to official data 
     from the Department of Agriculture, 92.3% of the horses 
     slaughtered are in good or excellent condition. Pictures of 
     the slaughterhouses' pens showing healthy, young horses 
     further corroborate this data.
       It is also false that the horse slaughter industry is 
     rooted on a presumed ``unwanted horse'' problem as the horse 
     slaughter industry maintains, simply because these plants are 
     importing thousands of Canadian horses each year in order to 
     cover the increasing foreign demand of horse meat. If there 
     are so many unwanted horses in the U.S. as they claim why do 
     they have to import them from Canada? The truth is that the 
     ``unwanted horse'' theory is a bald-faced lie.
       Horse slaughter promotes theft and abuse. After California 
     banned it in 1998 horse theft dropped by 34% while there were 
     no reported increase on abuse as the foreign-owned industry 
     maintains. In addition, there was no documented rise in 
     Illinois following closure of the state's only horse 
     slaughter plant in 2002.
       Horses are our companions and partners, they carry our 
     children in competition at the county 4-H fair, make our 
     country proud in the Olympic games, win Kentucky Derbies and 
     Triple Crowns, carried our soldiers into battle and helped 
     our forefathers to settle this country. They deserve better 
     than ending up served on the plates of fancy restaurants from 
     Brussels and Paris.
       Again, I urge you to vote for H.R. 503 as originally 
     introduced by Reps. Sweeney, Spratt and Whitfield. I also 
     please request a response from you stating your position on 
     this issue. Thank you for your time and consideration of this 
     letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Betty Scheldt,
                                            Carlinville, IL 62626.

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking 
member of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the American Horse 
Slaughter Prevention Act. The House has gone on the record three times 
now in strong opposition to horse slaughter.
  I hope my colleagues will maintain that record, maintain their 
consistency and give overwhelming support of this bill. It is a sad 
state of affairs when we have to fight to prevent the slaughter of more 
than 90,000 American horses a year.
  Horses are an integral part of the tapestry of this country, an 
American icon. The horse is a symbol, a promise of possibility. Most of 
all, the horse is a companion, as we just heard in the letter of Mr. 
Jones's constituent in North Carolina. The horse is tied to the spirit 
of the American frontier, the homesteaders in covered horse-drawn 
wagons, a cowboy and the wild mustangs. All symbols of America.
  The horse is a promise of possibility. How often Americans have sat 
in anticipation, watching the pageantry of thoroughbreds racing for the 
roses in the annual Kentucky Derby, while fully hoping for the triumph 
of some deserving underdog, perchance to see a rare Triple Crown 
winner, a truly American story.
  But most importantly, the horse is a companion for many Americans in 
a treasured childhood memory. Little boys and girls for generations 
have ridden a carousel pony dreaming that some day they will have a 
real horse to ride, a companion.
  Horses are a part of our identity and our heritage, and in America 
they are not for human consumption. But, unfortunately, that is the 
fate of many of these animals.
  Today, three foreign-owned slaughter houses operate in the U.S., 
serving an overseas market in horse meat. Thousands more horses are 
shipped annually out of the U.S., destined for other foreign slaughter 
houses. Horse slaughter is an export-driven market. Americans do not 
want it, and we should not be facilitating it.
  The horse slaughter industry and its allies are going to extreme 
lengths to prevent this ghastly, but lucrative, practice.
  I hope that the House will once again pass this much-needed 
legislation and not see the Department of Agriculture circumvent the 
intent of Congress.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to

[[Page H6326]]

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the House 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank Mr. Peterson for allowing me to speak 
today.
  To set the record straight, I love horses. I own a horse. In fact, my 
horse, Skychief Poco, and I won the 1997 SandHills Rodeo and quarter 
horse show team penning championship. I have got the wherewithal to let 
him live out his days in the pasture behind my house. But if you 
notice, I have used the possessive pronoun ``my'' each time I describe 
my horse.
  At its core, this isn't about people who love horses. This isn't 
about the American icon. This isn't about the kid who rides a carousel 
and wants to own a pony. This is about personal property rights. I have 
personal property that is a horse. He is not a pet necessarily. He is 
never going to be eaten, but that is not the issue here.
  The title of the bill on the other side makes constant reference to 
the Slaughter Prevention Act or Slaughter Protection Act. Nothing in 
the bill has anything to do with the actual slaughter of the horses, 
the euthanasia of the horse, not the methods. Because if we are talking 
about methods that need to do it better, let's do that.
  But this is an attack on the personal property rights of all horse 
owners out there in America. At its core, this is also about what 
happens to the carcass of a dead horse, whether it is an affront to the 
icon of America to process that horse carcass into food or whether to 
chop that horse up and put it in a landfill, or chop that horse up and 
bury it in your back yard. However you treat the carcass of that horse, 
that is really what this is about.
  This strips out the personal value, the personal property value of 
every horse owner that chooses to dispose of their horses in various 
ways and that we all should take great interest in how that is done. 
That is not what this bill does. This strips simply strips out my 
right, my personal property rights, to own that horse and dispose of 
him at the point when I want to.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is an attack on 
personal property rights without due process and is unfortunate.
  One other piece of this bill is that, which is added toward the end 
of it, is that if you have a horse that is sore, and you are at a 
competition or at an event, the Secretary of Agriculture is allowed to 
come take that horse from you. So I would urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill. It is ill conceived and should not pass.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chairman, I have been around and worked with 
horses all my life. I think I have as much appreciation and admiration 
for these creatures as anyone in this body; but I am very much opposed 
to this bill, first, because, contrary to, I am sure, the intentions of 
this authors, this bill will result in more abuse, more neglect and 
more inhumane treatment of horses.
  I would just say that those who are so certain that horses are better 
off to die peacefully out in the field have never come across an old 
horse out in a field or a pasture who cannot get up and stand on its 
legs and continues to beat its head against the ground in an effort to 
get leverage to stand back up. Such people have never come across an 
older horse down in the pasture or field and begins to be eaten by 
predators and can do nothing about it because he can't get back on his 
feet.
  The idea that it is more humane to let all horses die peacefully in a 
field, rather than dealt with in a regulated, inspected manner, is just 
wrong. So the bottom line is, this bill results in more neglect and 
more abuse, more mistreatment of horses, as owners cannot afford to 
take care of them, or they are left to, quote, die peacefully in a 
field.
  Secondly, it is a tremendous blow to private property rights. If 
anyone thinks there is any reason for the Congress to stop with a 
regulation of how we govern horses and not go right ahead and say what 
owners ought to do to their pigs and their cattle or their dogs and 
their cats or their fish in the aquarium, then you haven't realized the 
consequences of this bill. It is a bad idea. It should be rejected.
  Madam Chairman, I have been around and worked with horses all of my 
life, and I think that I have as much appreciation and respect for 
these magnificent creations of God as anyone in this body. And I am 
strongly opposed to this bill.
  The motives behind this proposal are, I am sure, honorable. But the 
consequences of it in the real world will be so detrimental to what the 
authors say they hope to achieve, that I wonder if some are 
intentionally turning a blind eye to them.
  If old horses cannot be dealt with humanely, many of them will be 
left to suffer. Those who are so certain that all horses are better off 
being allowed to die of old age have never seen a horse that has been 
unable to get up and continues to beat its head against the ground for 
leverage to try to stand. How is that better for the animal?
  If older horses cannot be sold here, they will be sold in Mexico, 
without our standards and inspections. How is that better for the 
animal?
  The bottom line is that more horses will starve, more horses will be 
abused or neglected, more horses will suffer unnecessarily if this bill 
were to become law.
  In addition, the precedent this bill would set would be deeply 
disturbing to the basic American principle of private property rights. 
If the Federal Government can dictate what individuals may and may not 
do with personal property--to whom it may or may not be sold--the 
fundamental right to own property will suffer a terrible blow.
  Of course, there is no reason for the Federal legislation to stop 
with horses. Federal law could regulate treatment of cattle and pigs, 
dogs and cats, or fish in the aquarium.
  Criminal abuse of animals is a crime prosecuted by State and local 
authorities. A Federal law restricting the ability to sell private 
property based on some people's misguided idea of how that property 
should be treated is a dangerous thing, and this bill should be 
rejected.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WHITFIELD. A parliamentary inquiry. Could you explain the 
remaining time that is available.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). Yes. The gentleman from Kentucky 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 4 minutes remaining, and 
the gentlewoman from Illinois has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize the majority leader's 
designee, Mr. Goodlatte, for the closing speech.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that 
dealt with this issue, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished colleague. As the gentleman 
from Virginia pointed out, we had a hearing on July 25, 2006, on this 
same issue. My colleagues, I think it was a balanced hearing. I think 
Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Sweeney were both there. Mr. Sweeney testified, 
also Chairman Goodlatte testified. I think it brought out the pros and 
cons of this.
  Whatever is proposed, however, must have a full understanding of the 
ultimate effects on the American horse population and their caregivers, 
because arguments presented on both sides seem to paint a pretty bleak, 
bleak picture for a large number of horses. But I am concerned that 
H.R. 503 does not solve the problem of unwanted horses.
  Unfortunately, it provides no solution to the unfortunate reality of 
the life of these horses. Horses are a beloved part of our American 
heritage and deserve more humane approaches at the end of their lives. 
I think we all agree.
  But this bill, H.R. 503, does not solve the problem. In fact, as many 
point out, it is a property rights issue; and we should be concerned 
ultimately where these horses will finally graze and who will pay for 
it.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Madam Chairman and Members, I rise in support of this bill. 
I have been listening to this debate all

[[Page H6327]]

day. I don't think most people have read it. The bill deals with the 
slaughter for humane consumption. Now, I represent California, the most 
populous State in the Union, which has the most horses.
  Guess what, this has been the law in California for many years, and 
all of these naysayers and predictors of bad happening just doesn't 
happen in California. Change this debate; change this debate.
  What if we were up here talking about slaughtering cats and dogs for 
profit for human consumption? You wouldn't have people up here saying, 
well, the cats and dogs population will ruin everything; it will stop 
the world. We take care. The slaughterers don't buy sick horses, 
injured horses. They buy fresh horses, and they buy them for human 
consumption. This bill says you can't do that.
  Now this is the day and age in America when we ought to be not 
allowing people to for profit buy horses merely to slaughter them for 
human consumption. That is wrong. This bill is right.
  I urge a rejection of the amendment and a passage of the bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the bill as well, 
H.R. 503, the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. As a cosponsor of this 
bill, I believe this legislation is necessary to prevent the inhumane 
disposal of beautiful animals.
  Horses hold a special place in this country. They were vital during 
our settlement, allowing us to travel great distances quickly and 
providing the necessary strength for farming. Today, we are able to 
appreciate their grace and speed in a variety of different venues from 
racing to recreational horses. They are all part of America.
  The fact, though, is important to underscore. We don't allow horse 
meat to be eaten in this country. To allow the shipment of meat 
overseas is a bit hypocritical. While some may have expressed concern 
about the cost of disposing of sick horses, the fact is, according to 
the USDA, 90 percent of horses arriving in slaughter are in good 
condition.
  There are many alternatives other than horse slaughtering, and among 
those options are horse welfare associations and equine sanctuaries. 
The bill responds to a strong American concern about the treatment of 
horses, in addition to prohibiting the trade and transfer of live 
horses intended for human consumption
  H.R. 503 lessens the USDA's workload by reducing the number of 
animals requiring inspection.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  As has been said very ably by the Dean of the House, Mr. Dingell, 
this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There have been a 
lot of assertions made out here that I think are a little bit suspect.
  But one of the things that I want to point out, the previous speaker, 
Mr. Farr, my good friend from California, claims that they have done 
this, and there are no problems, well, there was a peer-reviewed 
article in the Journal of Agribusiness which highlights the lack of 
enforcement in California of their law, anecdotal evidence of increased 
horse abandonment, malnutrition, greater numbers of thin and crippled 
horses at auction in California. So this is a peer-reviewed article 
that refutes that assertion that was made by Mr. Farr.
  This is a bill that on the merits is a bad bill. It was defeated in 
the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 37-3 because those of us on the 
Agriculture Committee represent rural America, represent the areas that 
have horses and use horses every day. The American Quarter Horse 
Association, the American Paint Horse Association, the biggest horse 
associations in the country oppose this bill.
  There are a lot of good reasons; but the main reason, in my opinion, 
is that this is just absolutely the wrong way to do business in the 
House of Representatives. As has been pointed out by Mr. Hoyer and by 
others, we have many more priorities that we ought to be working on in 
this Congress other than this bill. That is, you know, obvious.
  But, you know, it really offends me to take the work of the 
committee, and this can be any issue, and overturn it and put a bill on 
the floor that is completely opposed to what the committee decided. I 
think it is absolutely the wrong way to run this institution and 
probably is the best reason for us not to pass this legislation.
  I just have to say one other thing. I just was up in Hallock, 
Minnesota, the other day, and one of the main things that we ought to 
be doing in this Congress, that we haven't done, that we have been 
trying to do since last December, is get disaster legislation passed to 
help those people that got wiped out in 2005 and to help the people 
that have been wiped out here in 2006. That would be a much better use 
of the Agriculture Committee's time on the floor of the House of 
Representatives than dealing with this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and send this bill where it 
belongs, that is, back to the committee.

                              {time}  1330

  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the 
committee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I want to point out there is a book called, ``Alternatives to Auction 
and Slaughter: A Guide for Equine Owners (A Better Way),'' that lists 
all kinds of places that welcome animals that are at the end of their 
lives and are unwanted.
  Quite frankly, I find really disingenuous those on the other side who 
oppose this legislation who say those of us who support ending horse 
slaughter are actually going to be hurting horses more, that we somehow 
don't get it. I think that is very disrespectful to the well over 500 
organizations that support this bill, including the American Horse 
Defense Fund, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
Animals, the Animal Protection Institute, the Humane Society of the 
United States. Clearly, I could go on and on. These are organizations 
that are in business for the sole purpose of making sure that animals 
are treated humanely. They are not mistaken in supporting this 
legislation.
  Those of us who truly care about the welfare of horses should support 
this legislation.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I would say this: The State of Texas tried to close these 
slaughter houses down for many years. Officials there did. A lawsuit 
was filed by the slaughter houses. Remember, they are foreign-owned, 
Belgian, Dutch and French. In that lawsuit, the slaughter houses owned 
by the foreign companies won that lawsuit because the Federal judge 
said that this is an interstate commerce issue; and there is Federal 
preemption involved; and if you are going to shut down slaughter houses 
in operation in interstate commerce, then the U.S. Congress has to act.
  Now this bill came before the Energy and Commerce Committee because 
of the lack of action on the Ag Committee for many years. They never 
wanted it to see the light of day.
  I would urge Members to vote for H.R. 503. As I have said before, the 
unwanted horse argument is not a real argument because horses being 
slaughtered are not unwanted. To think that we would have the 
responsibility of reimbursing owners who are overbreeding, who have the 
responsibility to take care of their own horses, they make it appear 
that the government has that responsibility. Owners have their own 
responsibility.
  Private property rights, this bill protects private property rights. 
Because of the number of horses being stolen, we are protecting those 
private property rights.
  This bill allows an owner, a rancher or farmer who owns a horse to do 
whatever he wants to with the horse. He can shoot it or slaughter it 
and eat it himself. We simply are shutting down an illicit, secretive 
business, and that is what this bill is all about.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this is an emotionally 
charged issue. But passion when left unchecked can have negative 
consequences. That

[[Page H6328]]

is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today.
  I have asked my colleagues to consider the consequences of this 
legislation, as did I and the 36 bipartisan members of the House 
Committee on Agriculture. And the gentleman wonders why they have never 
dealt with it; the committee voted 37-3 to report this bill unfavorably 
with the recommendation that it not pass the House. And I thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership on his side of the aisle 
and for yielding me some of his time.
  Also, more than 200 reputable national and State organizations, 
including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American 
Association of Equine Practitioners, the horse doctors who polled their 
members, 80 percent were opposed to this legislation. Also opposed are 
the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Quarter Horse 
Association, the National Association of Counties, and every State 
horse council in the country that has taken a stand on this issue, 
including New York, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Virginia, North 
Carolina, have all opposed this legislation.
  The consequences of this legislation are far-reaching and stand to 
jeopardize the welfare of America's horse population and will 
potentially place a significant financial burden on horse owners across 
the Nation.
  Instead of solving problems, H.R. 503 creates problems. It provides 
no directive as to what will happen to the 90,000 unwanted horses 
annually processed in slaughter facilities, and it increases the 
probability of unwanted horses becoming victims of neglect, starvation 
and abandonment. That is not just my opinion; that is the opinion of 
the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American 
Association of Equine Practitioners.
  H.R. 503 provides no funding for alternatives and no instructions for 
the regulation of rescue or shelter facilities to ensure the welfare of 
these unwanted and unusable horses. The influx of unwanted horses would 
flood the already inadequate, overburdened, unregulated rescue-and-
adoption facilities. There are roughly 6,000 slots in America's horse 
shelters and rescue facilities, 6,000. The majority of these shelters 
are operated by individuals who are able to take one, maybe two, horses 
at a time. These shelters and rescue facilities cannot possibility 
accommodate many, many times, 20, 30 times that number of horses that 
would be created by this bill.
  It limits horse owners' availability of choice of how to dispose of 
their animals and infringes on owners' private property rights.
  Horse owners have a variety of options when seeking to get rid of an 
unusable or unwanted horse, including rescue or retirement facilities, 
private sale, donation, euthanasia and processing facilities. Depending 
on the individual needs of the owner and the horse, some options may be 
more feasible than others. By eliminating this option, we are dictating 
what horse owners can and cannot do with their own private property. We 
must respect the right of responsible owners to choose the option best 
suited for their unique circumstances.
  It mandates costs on private citizens. If the bill were enacted as 
written and the processing of horses for human consumption was no 
longer a legal option for owners to dispose of unwanted horses, 
estimates place the additional number of unwanted horses at 272,000 
within the first 6 years.
  Today we take care of 20,000 wild horses in corrals out west that 
cost us $50 million a year. Imagine having 10, 15, 20 times as many 
horses to take care of who are in that same situation. The cost to 
private horse owners of maintaining these horses has been 
conservatively estimated to be between $3 and $4 billion. By 
eliminating the option of horse processing facilities, thereby limiting 
the option of owners to dispose of their property, Congress would be 
forcing a $3 to $4 billion burden on private citizens and maybe perhaps 
to State and local governments, one of the reasons why the National 
Association of Counties is concerned about protecting private property 
rights.
  The bottom line, H.R. 503 does not solve problems; it creates 
problems. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Chairman, I would like to make this very clear: if 
you believe in the humane treatment of animals, this bill takes us a 
step backwards. If you believe in preserving a balanced and natural 
ecosystem, this bill moves us in the wrong direction. If you believe in 
personal property rights, this bill represents an outright assault on 
that uniquely American ideal.
  There are many who will come before the House today and will say that 
Americans are thoughtlessly slaughtering young, strong horses--symbols 
of the American West--and that there can be no good reason for this 
slaughter. I am here today to tell you that this is not the case.
  In my home State of Wyoming, we proudly display a bucking bronco as a 
symbol of our Western heritage. In fact, one of the first memories of 
my life is sitting on the back of a horse. I love horses as much as 
anyone here, and just like the proponents of this bill, I do not want 
to see these animals suffer. But I rise today to say that if enacted, 
this legislation would create more suffering for both horse and human.
  By opposing this bill, we are not striking out at symbols of the 
American West. In fact, we are making a responsible herd management 
decision that protects horses, humans, and the ecosystem. Many of these 
horses are old, ill, starving due to overpopulation, or they have 
otherwise ceased in their proper function.
  But you don't need to take my word for it. As many have already 
stated, over 200 reputable horse organizations, animal health 
organizations, and agricultural organizations have voiced their strong 
opposition to this bill.
  Most importantly, I have heard loud and clearly from folks who know 
and love horses more than anyone in this chamber--Wyoming's ranchers. 
These hard working ranching families breed their own horses, they help 
deliver them at birth, they train them, they feed and raise them, and 
they care for them when they are sick. Every day of their lives they 
are interacting with the horses that they love. Wyoming's ranchers 
depend on horses for their livelihood. They know all there is to know 
about caring for a horse, because in the harsh seasons on the high 
plains and in the Rocky Mountains, they have to know in order to 
survive.
  These folks know their animals like they know themselves. And yet, 
today, we are considering a bill that will tie their hands, preventing 
them from making a humane choice for their horses. Today we are 
considering a bill that will sentence innumerable horses to a life of 
starvation and suffering. Today, we are considering passing a bill that 
will have untold disastrous effects on the ecosystem.
  I sincerely admire the motivation of those in favor of this bill 
today. If only their love for these regal creatures was enough to care 
for the needs of the 90,000 unwanted horses this bill will create each 
year, then there would be no need for this debate. If only their zeal 
to defend these animals could somehow control the overpopulated wild 
horse herds roaming the plains of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah and 
Colorado, then we would have no need for humane population control. But 
the honest truth, Madam Chairman, is that this bill offers no 
solutions. We cannot absorb 90,000 horses a year. If we pass this bill, 
we will be putting rhetoric above the realities of ranch life; and we 
will be elevating a mistaken idea about Western symbols above the 
livelihood of Wyoming's ranchers. I cannot support such a measure.
  I urge my colleagues to put their emotions aside, look past the 
surface, and into the real policy problems this bill will create. Vote 
``no'' on H.R. 503.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I strongly oppose 
the slaughter of horses for human consumption.
  For this reason I am a cosponsor of H.R. 503. This bill prohibits the 
shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, 
purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be 
slaughtered for human consumption.
  An overwhelming majority of my constituents from the Dallas, Texas, 
area are opposed to horse slaughter, and my vote reflects their will.
  My office phone has been ringing off the hook with constituents 
opposed to horse slaughter. I have received more than 500 letters in 
the past few days. All are opposed to horse slaughter.
  Horses are a symbol of American freedoms. They are a part of our 
history, our culture, and they deserve better.
  Three slaughterhouses remain in the United States, and unfortunately 
two of them are in Texas. These meat factories kill about 100,000 
American horses per year, sending the meat to countries overseas for 
fine dining.
  Madam Chairman, I vigorously oppose this gruesome practice. And I 
don't agree with the argument that shutting down these slaughterhouses 
will hurt the local economies or be inhumane for horses.

[[Page H6329]]

  In my opinion, this bill protects American horses from being raised--
and slaughtered--for human consumption.
  I support H.R. 503 and urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, this week the census bureau released a 
report showing that for the first time since 1998, the number of 
uninsured children increased. Of the 8.3 million children without 
health insurance, minority children constitute a disproportionate 
share. The latest census figures also show that a record 46.6 Americans 
lack health insurance. With crucial issues facing the country such as 
the health care crisis, a broken immigration system, shortfalls in 
homeland security, and a stagnant minimum wage, I am baffled that the 
Republican leadership would spend precious time on horse slaughter 
legislation.
  I do not want to minimize the importance of banning inhumane 
slaughter of horses for purposes of human consumption overseas. In 
fact, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter 
Prevention Act and support clean passage of that legislation. However, 
it is distressing that with only approximately 15 legislative days 
before the election, Republicans are ignoring the priorities of the 
American people.
  I am troubled that the 109th Congress will be remembered in history 
as a ``do-nothing'' Congress. According to the Library of Congress, the 
House of Representatives in 2006 is on track to be in session for the 
fewest number of days since 1948. When the Congress has been in 
session, Republicans have pushed divisive and unproductive legislation 
such as constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and flag 
burning.
  The time is long overdue to address the people's business. Several 
months ago, both the House and Senate passed immigration and boarder 
security bills. Instead of working out an agreement on illegal 
immigration, Republicans scheduled new field hearings in swing 
districts. With more talk and less action, the Republican led Congress 
and White House have failed to gain control over the border. They have 
failed to conduct workplace enforcement of immigration laws and have 
thus failed to protect American workers from declining low wages.
  Republican inaction on homeland security is even more disconcerting. 
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission has given this Administration and the 
rubberstamp Republican congressional leaders poor grades for failing to 
implement the Commission's recommendations. We must take immediate 
steps to secure our borders, strengthen security around sensitive 
infrastructure, and give our first responders the necessary resources 
to protect the country.
  Republican leadership has failed to improve the American people's 
economic security. As CEO compensation has soared, real family income 
is down since 2001. Since 1997, Republicans have repeatedly rejected a 
minimum wage increase for 6.6 million of the hardest working Americans. 
We must provide a livable wage so families can afford to make ends 
meet.
  With the American people paying our salaries, we in the Congress have 
a duty to solve their problems. It is about time the Republican-led 
Congress earned its paycheck.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Chairman, I cannot support this bill in 
its present form.
  I understand and appreciate the views of its proponents, many of them 
in Colorado, who are distressed about the fact that three 
slaughterhouses in this country are in the business of preparing horse 
flesh for human consumption--primarily in other countries.
  The bill's supporters do not think this is appropriate, and that 
Congress should exercise its authority over interstate commerce in 
order to put an end to this business. That is what this bill is 
intended to do.
  I can understand the discomfort many Americans have about consumption 
of horse flesh, although of course it has been and remains an accepted 
practice in some places.
  But emotional concerns cannot be the only guiding force in 
legislation regarding the way livestock is managed, and prohibiting 
slaughter of horses for human consumption--the main market for horse 
flesh at this time--would have unintended consequences this legislation 
fails to address.
  The hearings held by the Agriculture Committee made it clear that 
there the current horse sanctuaries do not have the capacity to care 
for the additional unwanted horses--which otherwise would be handled by 
slaughterhouses that would result from the bill's enactment. That was 
one reason the committee, on a bipartisan basis reported the 
legislation unfavorably.
  I voted for an amendment that would have delayed implementation of 
the bill until the Agriculture Department determined that adequate 
sanctuaries were ready. Unfortunately, that amendment was not adopted. 
Similarly, state and local governments--including the Colorado 
Department of Agriculture and the Commissioners of Adams County--are 
concerned that shutting off the slaughterhouse outlet will lead to an 
increased number of unwanted horses being abandoned and left to be 
dealt with by local authorities. I am attaching letters from the 
Colorado Commissioner on Agriculture and Adams County Commissioners who 
oppose this legislation. I voted for an amendment to provide federal 
reimbursement to local governments faced with such a problem. However, 
that amendment also was rejected.
  Because of these problems, I cannot vote for the bill as it stands. 
Finally, I must note that with the nation at war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, everyday Americans struggling with a mediocre economy and 
high energy costs, there are more pressing issues Congress needs to 
address than this one.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I rise today in honor of our country's 
beloved horses. It is my hope that Congress will pass H.R. 503 
unamended, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This bill will 
end horse slaughter for human consumption in the United States and the 
cruel practices associated with this inhumane industry.
  When horses are sold to slaughter they are often transported in 
overcrowded trucks, deprived of food and water, exposed to the elements 
and made to stand in their own waste. The slaughter bound horse can be 
sick or injured but forced to suffer a lack of appropriate veterinary 
care. The stress that horses are subjected to, both during 
transportation and at the slaughterhouse, triggers horses' natural 
flight response. At the slaughterhouse a horse can be ineffectively 
stunned before dismemberment, meaning that a horse may remain conscious 
while being bound and then elevated by one leg prior to having its 
throat slit.
  H.R. 503 encourages responsible horse ownership. For horse owners, 
who are no longer able or willing to care for a horse, H.R. 503 finds 
appropriate alternatives to slaughter that may range from finding a new 
home for the horse to humane euthanasia preformed by a licensed 
veterinarian.
  Documentation from the three remaining equine slaughterhouses in the 
United States show that America's wild horses have been among their 
victims. Additional victims include stolen, as well as healthy horses. 
This legislation will stop the sale of wild, stolen or healthy horses 
to slaughter houses for human consumption at a profit.
  The word humane is defined as being marked by compassion, sympathy 
and consideration for animals. The question we must ask ourselves is if 
subjecting horses to this kind of circumstance is indeed humane? Is 
horse slaughter marked by compassion, sympathy and consideration for 
the animal? The only realistic conclusion is no.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 503 and to oppose all amendments 
designed to weaken this important bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have joined 202 of my 
colleagues in cosponsoring the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act 
and I rise today in support of its passage. It is time to put a stop to 
a business that has been allowed to go on for far too long.
  Many Americans have made their stance on this issue clear: a recent 
poll shows that almost 7 percent of Americans are in favor of banning 
horse slaughter. The slaughtering process is one that is shockingly 
inhumane--when transported to slaughtering houses, horses are crammed 
into trucks and may go unfed for as many as 28 hours. Animals that 
survive this ordeal often die by the captive bolt, an instrument meant 
to cause immediate trauma to the brain but is often used improperly, 
resulting in slow and painful deaths.
  Those who oppose this law believe H.R. 503 will result in an 
overpopulation of horses. Yet the Department of Agriculture has found 
that 5,000 horses have been imported to slaughter plants since August 
2004. As the Humane Society of the United States rightly observes, 
there would be no reason to import horses if we have an overpopulation.
  Opponents of this bill have also warned that horses who would 
otherwise be slaughtered would not receive adequate care once they are 
transferred to alternate homes or rescue facilities. But horse rescue 
groups are required to abide by state and local animal welfare laws. 
California banned horse slaughter in 1998 and there has been no 
documented rise in cruelty and neglect cases. Similarly, there was no 
increase in brutality toward horses following the closing of Illinois' 
only slaughter plant in 2002.
  There is no reason why the inhumane treatment of these animals should 
continue, particularly when our horses are being slaughtered solely for 
the purpose of pleasing foreign diners. I urge all my colleagues to 
join me in support of this bill.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support in H.R. 503, 
which would prohibit the slaughtering of horses for human consumption. 
Last year more than 90,000 American horses were slaughtered in this 
country by three foreign-owned plants. Horse meat is

[[Page H6330]]

not eaten in the United States, but it has been exported to overseas 
markets, such as France, Belgium, Japan and Italy. Animals deserve to 
be treated humanely, and I do not support this industry.
  This Congress made its opposition to horse slaughter clear in the 
Agriculture Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006. I supported an 
amendment introduced by Representative Sweeney and Representative 
Whitfield that would have essentially tied the hands of the horse 
slaughter industry. Unfortunately the language approved by both the 
House and Senate, which had the clear intention of ending this 
industry, was altered in conference and allowed the slaughtering of 
horses to continue.
  H.R. 503 would permanently shut down this inhumane practice. This 
legislation has wide bipartisan support in the House as well as 
extensive backing from the animal welfare community. I want to 
specifically thank Representative Sweeney and Representative Whitfield 
for their hard work and leadership on this important issue.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 503

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SHIPPING, TRANSPORTING, MOVING, 
                   DELIVERING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING, PURCHASING, 
                   SELLING, OR DONATION OF HORSES AND OTHER 
                   EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Horse Protection Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1821) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (5), and (6), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated, 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) The term `human consumption' means ingestion by 
     people as a source of food.''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3), as so redesignated, 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) The term `slaughter' means the killing of one or more 
     horses or other equines with the intent to sell or trade the 
     flesh for human consumption.''.
       (b) Findings.--Section 3 of the Horse Protection Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1822) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (10), respectively;
       (2) by adding before paragraph (6), as so redesignated, the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(1) horses and other equines play a vital role in the 
     collective experience of the United States and deserve 
     protection and compassion;
       ``(2) horses and other equines are domestic animals that 
     are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport;
       ``(3) unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and 
     other equines are not raised for the purpose of being 
     slaughtered for human consumption;
       ``(4) individuals selling horses or other equines at 
     auctions are seldom aware that the animals may be bought for 
     the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption; and
       ``(5) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the 
     Department of Agriculture has found that horses and other 
     equines cannot be safely and humanely transported in double 
     deck trailers;''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (8), as so redesignated, and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore 
     horses in intrastate commerce, and the shipping, 
     transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, 
     purchasing, selling, or donation in intrastate commerce of 
     horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human 
     consumption, adversely affect and burden interstate and 
     foreign commerce;''.
       (c) Prohibition.--Section 5 of the Horse Protection Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1824) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (9) through (12), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(8) As a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and 
     practicability of imposing such a prohibition nation-wide, 
     the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, 
     possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of any horse or 
     other equine in the States of Kentucky or New York to be 
     slaughtered for human consumption, unless the equine--
       ``(A) is owned or controlled by a State or local government 
     or owned by an individual who purchased the equine from a 
     State or local government;
       ``(B) will be slaughtered at a facility operating before 
     the date of the enactment of this paragraph; or
       ``(C) will be slaughtered for human consumption for 
     charitable or humanitarian purposes.''.
       (d) Authority to Detain.--Section 6(e) of the Horse 
     Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence of paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated, 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(1) The Secretary may detain for examination, testing, or 
     the taking of evidence--
       ``(A) any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or 
     horse sale or auction which is sore or which the Secretary 
     has probable cause to believe is sore; and
       ``(B) any horse or other equine which the Secretary has 
     probable cause to believe is being shipped, transported, 
     moved, delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold, or 
     donated in violation of section 5(8).''.
       (e) Reimbursement.--Section 11 of the Horse Protection Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1830) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 11. REIMBURSEMENT OF OWNERS FOR LOSS OF VALUE OF 
                   HORSES.

       ``The Secretary shall compensate the owner of an equine who 
     disposes of such equine due to the prohibition under section 
     5(8). The Secretary shall compensate such owner for the total 
     amount of--
       ``(1) the loss in value of the equine due to such 
     prohibition; and
       ``(2) the costs incurred in the disposal of such equine.''.
       (f) Responsibility for Unwanted Horses.--The Horse 
     Protection Act is further amended by inserting after section 
     11 (15 U.S.C. 1830), as amended by subsection (e), the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 11A. RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNWANTED HORSES.

       ``The Secretary shall assume responsibility for any equine 
     that is unwanted by an owner.''.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 12 of the 
     Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1831) is amended by striking 
     ``$500,000'' nad inserting ``$5,000,000''.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order 
except those printed in House Report 109-642. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  The Chair has been notified that amendments No. 1 and 2 will not be 
offered.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 109-642.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Goodlatte:
       In the paragraph (8) of section 5 of the Horse Protection 
     Act, which is being added by subsection (c)(2) of section 1 
     of the bill, strike ``consumption.'' and insert the 
     following: ``consumption, except that this prohibition shall 
     not take effect until 30 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary of Agriculture certifies to Congress that 
     sufficient sanctuaries exist in the United States to care for 
     any horses that may be unwanted as a result of this 
     prohibition.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 981, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  We have discussed many problems that the Sweeney-Whitfield bill will 
create with not a single solution in sight. While it is not possible to 
address all of those problems, we must address the fate of the horses 
affected by this bill.
  I am joined by my ranking member, Mr. Peterson, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the 
gentleman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) in offering an amendment to address this 
concern.
  The amendment would very simply say that until the Secretary of 
Agriculture can certify that sufficient sanctuary space is available to 
accommodate the unwanted horses created by this bill, the drastic step 
of a Federal mandate will be delayed.
  Everyone debating this issue today is dedicated to the best care 
possible for horses. We profoundly disagree on how to achieve that 
laudable goal. The cosponsors of this amendment believe it would be a 
tragedy to take the dramatic step of closing off a humane method of 
disposal of animals that the owners can no longer care for only to see 
them abandoned or killed wholesale at greater cost to their owners.
  If we are to take this drastic step, we should at least ensure that 
the horses for whom it is being done continue to live out their lives 
in humane circumstances.

[[Page H6331]]

  Nothing in this amendment would prevent the operation of H.R. 503 as 
long as there was assurance that a humane living alternative to the 
current system exists. It is impossible for me to believe that the 
supporters of H.R. 503 intend to replace the death of horses that they 
decry with abandonment or wholesale death at the hands of their owners.
  The proponents of this bill have assured us there will be no flood of 
unwanted horses with no place to go as a result of this bill. If this 
is true, and reputable organizations like the American Veterinary 
Medical Association and the American Association of Equine 
Practitioners strongly dispute that, but if it is true, our amendment 
will be an easy procedural step to meet.
  If, however, the Association of Equine Practitioners and major horse-
owning groups who oppose H.R. 503 are correct that hundreds of 
thousands of unwanted horses with no place to go would be created in 
just a few years, this amendment can prevent a catastrophe for horses 
in this country.
  I ask my colleagues to join us in passing this amendment that 
provides a solution for at least one of the problems created by this 
bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) to respond.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. Let's be 
very clear, all of these amendments have one intended purpose, and that 
is to destroy the bill. So if you are in favor of the ban of horse 
slaughter for human consumption, you need to vote against all of the 
amendments.
  This number, this establishment of an arbitrary number, is false. It 
will not be obtained because there are so many other options for horse 
owners other than horse sanctuary, but let's understand the facts.
  The current horse population is estimated at 9 million. As has been 
said, each year, roughly 900,000 horses die. About 90,000, or 1 
percent, are actually slaughtered. Furthermore, in 1989, the U.S. 
slaughtered over 342 horses. In 2005, they slaughtered 90,000. Since 
then, the United States slaughtered approximately 200,000 fewer horses. 
So 90,000 horses can be easily absorbed into the population. And not 
all of these horses will need to be absorbed into rescue and sanctuary 
populations. Horses will die or become sick or dangerous to their 
owners. These horses will need to be replaced. These horses will become 
pets or workhorses or show horses.
  Both the Bureau of Land Management and hundreds of private 
organizations and agencies provide adoption programs for people to 
replace these horses by adopting new ones. Additionally, thousands of 
these horses are humanely euthanized each year.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment, this proposal, is simply meant to 
ensure that this bill is never enacted. We should vote it down, and we 
should vote it down very strongly.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of this amendment. This bill displaces 90,000 
horses a year, 90,000. In spite of what my good friend Mr. Sweeney 
says, that is a lot of horses. Currently the horse facilities are 
already full. They can only take approximately 6,000 horses a year.
  What do we do, Mr. Sweeney, with those other 84,000 horses? This bill 
should not pass until the Secretary of Agriculture can certify to this 
Congress that there is enough space in these rescue facilities to 
accommodate all of these unwanted horses that have no place to go, no 
funds to care for them and no humane end-of-life option left for them.
  So I support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Talking about an amendment to create a problem that is not there, 
this is a perfect example of that. We have all of these organizations 
around the country who are voluntarily spending their time and money to 
provide a safe haven for horses, and this amendment basically is a 
killer amendment to defeat H.R. 503.

                              {time}  1345

  I would point out once again that each year the number of horses that 
have been slaughtered has been going down. We have gone from 300,000 
down to 90,000. There is no evidence that society has had any problem 
in absorbing these horses. And I would also remind the gentleman many 
of these horses are stolen; so they are not unwanted horses. There is a 
need for them. So we know for a fact that the only purpose of any of 
these amendments is to make this bill ineffective, to kill this bill.
  I am delighted that we are on the floor and have an opportunity to 
debate this, and I would urge every Member to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining 
on each side and who has the right to close.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will respond to the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from 
New York, who called this a poison pill. This is no such thing 
whatsoever. They say there is no problem with unwanted horses. Then 
there will be no problem getting a certification that there is 
sufficient horse sanctuary facilities around the country to take care 
of them. I strongly dispute that.
  I think the gentleman from New York and I, while we may disagree on 
numbers, can agree that 90,000 is 10 percent of 900,000, not 1 percent. 
But whatever that is, that is a substantial number of unwanted horses.
  And, remember, the average life expectancy of a horse is 25 years. 
Many of these horses have many years of life expectancy left in them; 
so they are going to accumulate over a period of years. In fact, the 
American Veterinary Medical Association says over 6 years they will 
grow to 272,000 in number. That is far, far more than the capacity of 
all the horse sanctuaries around the country that exist today. And 
there is no sign of their growing rapidly to meet this need because 
they cannot even meet the current need to take care of the unwanted 
horses that exist in this country right now as we speak.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support this very good amendment 
that will cure a very serious flaw in this legislation, and then we 
will have the opportunity to see who is correct about how many unwanted 
horses we are going to have in this country. Are the experts, the 
American Veterinary Medical Association, the horse doctors, the Horse 
Owners Associations around the country, who strongly support this 
amendment, correct, or are they correct?
  I think this is a fair amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to 
adopt it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I must say I am shocked that the gentleman would want to get the 
government involved in this kind of an issue. These are private 
property rights people who are out there voluntarily providing their 
property, their money to take care of these unwanted horses.
  And one of the reasons we opposed this amendment, you talk about 
sufficient horse sanctuaries. We know who would be defining 
``sufficient.'' The Department of Agriculture, who must work with your 
committee to get anything that they want on the farm bill or anything 
else; so you would be dictating what is sufficient, and we know that 
there would never be enough sanctuaries sufficient to meet your 
demands.
  So I would say once again we do not have to speculate about unwanted 
horses in the future. We know for a fact that unwanted horses is not a 
problem, as we have gone from 300,000 to 90,000 a year. No one has 
complained about it. No study has shown it. UC Davis in their study in 
California indicated that there have not been any additional increases 
of unwanted horses.
  So I would urge every Member to oppose this amendment, which is 
designed to defeat this bill.

[[Page H6332]]

  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, the additional amendments that have 
been made in order under my name or my designee we do not intend to 
bring up.


              Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 109-642.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. King of Iowa
       In the paragraph (8) of section 5 of the Horse Protection 
     Act, which is being added by subsection (c)(2) of section 1 
     of the bill, strike ``consumption.'' and insert the 
     following: ``consumption, unless the horse or other equine 
     will be slaughtered for human consumption by Native Americans 
     or persons of cultures who have traditionally consumed the 
     meat of horses or other equines, as determined by the 
     Secretary.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 981, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I am offering this amendment today 
that would allow a cultural exemption for Native Americans and people 
from cultures that consume equine meat.
  Specifically, my amendment would permit equine to be shipped, 
transported, moved, delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold, 
all of the list that is in the bill, Madam Chairman, by Native 
Americans or people from cultures who eat equine meat.
  Horses have played, and continue to play, an important role in Native 
American culture. It is particularly true for the tribes of the Great 
Northern Plains, including the Great Sioux Nation. Many tribal members 
raise and sell horses. In addition, the Apache people and the Pueblo 
people from the Southwest have consumed horse meat. They were very 
skilled on horseback, but they valued and cherished the horse as food 
as well.
  The Native American cultures are not the only people to eat or raise 
horses for meat. The people from the cultures of Japan, Belgium, 
France, Austria, Quebec, Chile, Germany, Iceland, Kazakhstan, including 
also the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Italy, all eat horse 
meat today and all have recipes today.
  People in support of this bill have a romantic view of the horse 
because it helped build America, and in their mind it is not in our 
culture to eat the horse for that reason. But they fail to understand 
that the oxen, bovine, was also a great assistance to us and maybe even 
a greater assistance in building America; but we do not have an 
aversion to beef, Madam Chairman.
  So for these reasons, I would ask support for this cultural exemption 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sweeney) in opposition.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Chairman, there are two giant loopholes created 
here, and I will submit for the Record statements by a number of Indian 
tribes, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association, the Inter-
Tribal Council of Nevada, and the National Congress of American 
Indians, in opposition to this amendment.
                                                      Great Plains


                                Tribal Chairman's Association,

                               Eagle Butte, SD, September 6, 2006.

      Resolution of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association

       Whereas, the Great Plains (formerly Aberdeen Area) Tribal 
     Chairman's Association (GPTCA) is composed of the elected 
     Chairs and Presidents of the sovereign Indian Tribes and 
     Nations recognized by Treaties with the United States that 
     are within the Great Plains Region of the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs; and
       Whereas, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association was 
     formed to promote the common interests of the sovereign 
     Tribes and Nations and their members of the Great Plains 
     Region; and
       Whereas, the United States has obligated itself both 
     through Treaties entered into with the sovereign Tribes and 
     Nations of the Great Plains Region and through its own 
     federal statutes, the Snyder Act of 1921 as amended, the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act of 1976 as amended, and the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 as amended; and
       Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains have strong 
     spiritual, cultural, and historical ties to wild horses; and
       Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains are disheartened 
     and alarmed by the new language in Appropriations Bill H.R. 
     4818 that would allow the slaughter of these sacred animals; 
     and
       Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains are concerned that 
     wild horses are fast disappearing and that soon there will 
     not be sufficient numbers to sustain healthy populations; and
       Whereas, the Tribes of the Great Plains recognize wild 
     horses as one of the last living symbols that represent our 
     ancestral past; and
       Whereas, the wild horses have no one to speak for them and 
     the Tribes of the Great Plains are compelled to step forward 
     on behalf of the last remaining wild horses in the United 
     States; and: Now, therefore be it
       Resolved; That the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's 
     Association opposes the slaughter of wild horses and supports 
     adoption of wild horses with the federal government waiving 
     the adoption fee and providing funds for transportation in 
     order to prevent their slaughter; and: Now, therefore be it 
     further
       Resolved; That the Great Plains Tribes support and 
     encourage the reintroduction and reinstitution of protective 
     legislation in the 109th United States Congress to prevent 
     wild horses and burros from being slaughtered and maintain a 
     viable number of animals on the public lands; and: Now, be it 
     finally
       Resolved; The Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association 
     call upon other Tribes and Indian Nations to join with us in 
     all efforts to find solutions for the preservation of wild 
     horses.
                                  ____


            National Congress of American Indians Resolution

       Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of 
     American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine 
     blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in 
     order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the 
     inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights 
     secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United 
     States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are 
     entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United 
     States, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding 
     of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and 
     otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the 
     Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the following 
     resolution; and
       Whereas, the National Congress. of American Indians (NCAI) 
     was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest 
     national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native 
     tribal governments; and
       Whereas, the NCAI recognizes that many of the Tribes have 
     strong spiritual, cultural, and historic ties to wild horses; 
     and
       Whereas, the Tribes oral history remembers wild horses from 
     ancient times and concurs that wild horses evolved on the 
     North American continent for eons of time; and
       Whereas, the NCAI acknowledges wild horses as one of the 
     last living symbols that represent our ancestral past when 
     people and animals were free to live and roam in harmony with 
     Mother Earth; and
       Whereas, the Tribes are disheartened and alarmed by the 
     passage of the Burn's amendment to PL 92-195 that allows for 
     the slaughter of these sacred animals; and
       Whereas, the Tribes are concerned that wild horses are fast 
     disappearing and that soon there will not be sufficient 
     numbers to sustain healthy populations; and
       Whereas, the wild horses have no one to speak for them and 
     the Tribes of the NCAI are compelled to step forward on 
     behalf of the last remaining wild horses in the United 
     States; and Now therefore be it
       Resolved, That the NCAI opposes the slaughter of wild 
     horses and supports the relocation of wild horses to Tribal 
     lands with the Department of the Interior waiving the 
     adoption fee and not charging more than $1.00 per animal and 
     providing transportation of the animals at no charge to the 
     accepting Tribes; and Now therefore be it
       Resolved, That the Tribes of the NCAI support and encourage 
     the reintroduction and reinstitution of protective 
     legislation in the 109th United States Congress to prevent 
     wild horses and burros from being slaughtered and to maintain 
     a viable number of animals on public lands; and Now be it 
     finally
       Resolved, That the NCAI Tribes call upon other Tribes and 
     Indian Nations to join us in all efforts to find solutions 
     for the preservation of wild horses.

[[Page H6333]]

     
                                  ____
                                                      Inter-Tribal


                                       Council of Nevada, Inc.

                                      Reno, NV, September 6, 2006.

                       Resolution No. 05-ITCN-02

       Whereas, the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, Inc., is 
     organized and operates in accordance with its Constitution 
     and By-Laws, amended in November 1974; and
       Whereas, the purposes of Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, 
     Inc. (ITCN), are stated in its Constitution, Preamble; and
       Whereas, the Executive Board, a body comprised of the 
     twenty-seven (27) elected representatives of the member 
     tribes in the State of Nevada and whose charter is ratified 
     by these same tribes; and
       Whereas, the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada has a 
     continuing interest in the health, education and well-being 
     of their Indian people; and
       Whereas, the Nevada tribes are disheartened and alarmed by 
     the new language in Appropriations Bill H.R. 4818 that would 
     allow the slaughter of these sacred animals; Now therefore be 
     it
       Resolved, That the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada opposes 
     the slaughter of wild horses and supports adoption of wild 
     horses with the federal government waiving the adoption fee 
     and providing funds for transportation in order to prevent 
     their slaughter; and Be it further
       Resolved, That the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada supports 
     and encourages the reintroduction and reinstitution of 
     protective legislation in the 109th United States Congress to 
     prevent wild horses and burros from being slaughtered and 
     utilized for food consumption and maintain a viable number of 
     animals on the public lands: Now be it finally
       Resolved, That the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada call upon 
     other Tribes and Indian Nations to join with us in all 
     efforts to find solutions for the preservation of wild 
     horses.

  Madam Chairman, the two loopholes are simply this: first, it would 
encourage the slaughter facilities to simply relocate to reservations 
and simply export the meat from there. This would allow the practice of 
slaughter to continue.
  Secondly, the amendment gives ``persons of cultures who have 
traditionally consumed the meat of horses'' an exemption. It is not 
defined in the bill, Madam Chairman. These persons of cultures are not 
specified. The amendment offered, I understand, has given us some 
definition, saying essentially this bill would say the French, the 
Belgians, whomever else may continue this practice simply because it is 
part of their culture. It is not defined. And, therefore, I think it is 
inappropriate to have it in the bill. It is a poison pill for this 
bill, and I strongly oppose it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, in response to the gentleman from 
New York, I would point out that I have a letter here from the United 
Sioux Tribes of South Dakota that I will introduce into the Record. And 
in this letter it says: ``Horses have played, and continue to play, an 
important role in the Indian culture. That is particularly true for 
Tribes of the Great Northern Plains.''
  And it says: ``Many tribal members raise and sell horses.'' This is 
currently, today. ``Some of these horses are used for food and 
exported. It is inconceivable to think the Congress might extinguish 
our property rights and lessen our income even more.''
  And I would point out to the gentleman from New York that we have in 
this amendment language that says it would be determined by the 
Secretary as to which cultural exemptions. So it is not simply a 
blanket exemption. I did not list the Irish in that, and maybe I am 
remiss in that. But I do not intend to build a record here of all of 
the cultures that have traditionally eaten horse meat, but there are 
many of them that do. They do so today. They have recipes today. And 
this is something that infringes upon people's property rights and 
their cultural rights. And if we are going to say this to the Native 
American people that we are going to pull these assets out from 
underneath you and you can't do with a horse what you have done for 
hundreds of years, I think that is a message that we are not going to 
want to send across America.

                                               United Sioux Tribes


                                              of South Dakota,

                                      Pierre, SD, August 22, 2006.
     Hon. Stephanie Herseth,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Attention: Ryan Stroschein & Phil Assmus
       Dear Stephanie: We greatly appreciate your opposition to 
     H.R. 503. This bill would, in short, prohibit the marketing 
     of our horses to slaughter.
       Horses have played, and continue to play, an important role 
     in the Indian culture. That is particularly true for Tribes 
     of the Northern Great Plains, including the Great Sioux 
     Nation. The United States has taken our land and if this bill 
     passes you will be taking our property without compensation.
       Many tribal members raise and sell horses. Some of these 
     horses are used for food and exported. It is inconceivable to 
     think the Congress might extinguish our property rights and 
     lessen our income even more. We urge you to ask your 
     colleagues to follow your lead and oppose H.R. 503. Thank 
     you.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Clarence W. Skye,
                                               Executive Director.

  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  I would also submit for the Record a letter that we have from Chief 
Arvol of the Lakota Nation, and he wrote a very long letter in 
opposition to this amendment. He says: ``I am writing to ask for your 
support in co-sponsoring the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act 
and for our tribe.''

       Dear Representative: My name is Chief Arvol Looking Horse 
     of the Lakota, Dakota, Nakota Nation. I am also known as 
     ``Sung Wakan'' (Horse Man). My position with my People is the 
     19th Generation Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf 
     Bundle. I am the spiritual leader for our Nation.
       It has been recorded in ancient petroglyphs and in our oral 
     stories that the horse nation was around our people long 
     before the Spaniards brought the other relative of the horse 
     nation to this land. These ancient horses were much smaller 
     in size and not so much in numbers, to a point of extinction.
       With this ancient Bundle, almost 2,000 years old, existed a 
     horse ceremony acknowledging the horse nation in respect to 
     their wise and gentle spirit, as they offered a gift of 
     healing for our own human spirit. My work has involved many 
     efforts in bringing awareness to the importance to all life 
     upon Mother Earth, including Mother Earth herself so that all 
     life may live in Peace. I was raised with the understanding 
     that all forms of life have their own meaning of importance 
     and should not be taken for granted. To ignore and not to try 
     to learn this precious truth of all living beings to live in 
     Peace with us as humans of power and decisions, will affect 
     the lives of our own children in their health of body mind 
     and spirit. We need to teach all children to look at all life 
     as sacred.
       The Horse Nation is an important spirit being. The Nation 
     deserves the protection and awareness of what we humans can 
     offer. They have saved, assisted, and given of themselves for 
     all humans throughout history. Whether it was being ridden in 
     battles, or in traveling, and most recently discovered by 
     therapists through friendship, they can give healing to our 
     troubled spirits. The Native Nations always understood these 
     gifts and that was why we had our horse dance ceremony.
       This awareness of the horse's gifts to humans has 
     transformed into a strong respect. This awareness has been 
     gathering People across the country to protect this fine 
     spirit from a very negative attack on their health and 
     existence, by unconscious disrespectful humans in the name of 
     greed. A horse can feel impending trauma in their 
     environment. Yet, horses trust humans and so are being led to 
     slaughter.
       This is not a way of respecting life that children need to 
     learn, as we adults having positions as role models and 
     leaders in our communities. This energy, as we understand 
     these actions to be, will indeed backfire, if people do not 
     educate themselves about the importance of the different 
     spiritual roles of all life forms. Some animal nations, 
     indeed, give themselves for food. They actually know their 
     purpose in the human's food chain, as long as humans 
     understand this with respect. We should understand the Horse 
     Nation has earned the right to live in Peace for what they 
     have contributed to all our lives throughout history.
       I am writing to ask for your support in cosponsoring the 
     American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. The AHSPA (H.R. 857) 
     has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by 
     Representative John Sweeney (R-NY) who is chair of the 
     Congressional Horse Caucus and Congressman John Spratt (D-
     SC). A similar bill will soon be before the U.S. Senate.
       Despite the passage of the Wild-Free Roaming Wild Horses 
     and Burros Act of 1971 which was enacted to protect the wild 
     horse from slaughter, hundreds, perhaps thousands, continue 
     to be slaughtered each year. The Bureau of Land Management 
     removed too many wild horses from their ranges resulting in 
     ongoing sales to the slaughterhouses. If you wish to learn 
     more about these activities, please contact Chris Heyde of 
     the Society for Animal Protective Legislation.
       In a Sacred Hoop of life, where there is no ending and no 
     beginning!
       Thank you for your attention to this effort.
           Mitakuye Oyasin (All my relations),
           Chief Arvol Looking Horse,
                                         19th Generation Keeper of
                               the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe.
  Madam Chairman, the purpose of H.R. 503 has never been to dictate to 
other cultures what they can and cannot eat. The purpose of H.R. 503 is 
simply to prohibit the French, the Belgians, the Dutch from offering 
slaughterhouses in America, taking our

[[Page H6334]]

horses, many of which are stolen, obtained by misrepresentation, and 
shipping the meat to France, Belgium, and Japan.
  So this amendment would do one thing. It would make the bill 
ineffective. It would defeat the bill in its entirety. And so I would 
urge the Members to oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Chairman, in this position that we are in today, to be 
objective in our perspective about how we deal with this issue, I don't 
know that there is a precedent in America that we have told an entire 
country no matter what your culture, no matter what your beliefs, no 
matter what your traditions, we do not want them here in this country. 
There are many other elements of other cultures that this civilization 
would be more healthy without, and yet there is not a single piece of 
legislation before this body that would define those components of 
another culture and rip them out and say, in our best judgment we think 
you ought to quit doing these things.
  We accept all beliefs in America. That is part of who we are. Freedom 
of speech, religion, press, all of our cultural composition comes with 
all immigrants into this country and with the Native Americans too. And 
this amendment says to the Native Americans specifically and other 
cultures inclusively, if certified by the Secretary, we are going to 
accept your beliefs. We are going to accept your traditions. It is part 
of who we are as America to blend all those cultures and those 
civilizations together and come out with this robust nature of our 
great American culture, and that is what this amendment is about. It is 
about protecting our traditional values.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I very much thank the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.
  I oppose this amendment because it is not about Native Americans. It 
is about creating one more loophole. And I oppose the other amendments 
because they would undermine the intent of this bill.
  We cannot be a Nation or a society that reduces everything to dollars 
and cents, that commoditizes everything. When you see an eagle take 
wing and soar above the clouds, that is not a commodity. It is a source 
of inspiration. When you see a horse galloping gracefully across the 
plains, that is not a commodity. That is a source of inspiration.
  Horses have been part of the strength of this country for 400 years. 
We depended upon the horse. We explored this continent. Our commerce 
was heavily dependent upon the horse. So many major battles where we 
prevailed were on horses.
  Look at our monuments. Look at the monument in front of the Capitol. 
It is a horse. And when the horse has one leg up, it means that that 
person was wounded in battle. But there has been an intrinsic 
relationship.
  Everything cannot be reduced to economics. We need to be inspired by 
some things, and these amendments would gut a bill that says there is 
no reason to be slaughtering horses. Three major slaughterhouses owned 
by foreign nations. Americans don't want to consume meat. Listen to the 
mayor of the city in Texas. It has ruined her economy. It is a stench. 
No one wants it. This is not about economics. This is about doing the 
right thing. And we have been tied to the horse, the eagle. These 
symbols of American strength, of American greatness, are sources of 
inspiration.
  My very good friend Mr. Whitfield understands what this is really 
about. This is about preserving a symbol. We cannot allow the kind of 
slaughtering that takes place. More than 100,000 horses. Imagine. And 
the fact is they are slaughtering the healthy, fatter horses that have 
been well taken care of. They do not want the infirm, the old, the lame 
horses. That is not who they want to slaughter. So many of these 
arguments have been false arguments.

                              {time}  1400

  This amendment is doing the right thing. The Department of 
Agriculture circumvented the right thing that we have already passed. I 
support Mr. Whitfield. Let's pass this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, does he have the right to close or do 
I have the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman from Kentucky has 
the right to close.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Madam Chair, I would reiterate that this amendment is about the 
cultural exemption to horse slaughter and consumption for human 
purposes. And this is something that has gone on in this country for 
hundreds of years.
  Since the Spaniards brought the horses here, there have been horses 
consumed for human consumption. It has been part of the plan, part of 
the breeding, part of the raising, part of the feeding and part of the 
strategy.
  In fact, as I stand here today, this date here in September is almost 
very close to the date that, 200 years ago, Lewis and Clark returned, 
back down the Missouri River. It was in September of 1806. They bought 
horses from the Native Americans out west for the purposes of taking 
those horses as pack horses up into the mountains. They knew they would 
not need those horses when they got to the end of the line. And they 
bought those horses. Part of their strategy when they left St. Louis 
was, buy horses in that region and when you are finished working them, 
eat them. Louis and Clark ate horses. All of these ethnicities and 
countries that I have named all eat horses.
  I do not think there is an ethnicity that has been exempt from having 
horses in their diet, but particularly Native Americans who, the Great 
Plains Native Americans, the Sioux Nation, and I represent Sioux 
County, and I represent two reservations in my district that I have had 
for over 10 years now, or almost 10 years now; all of those cultures 
are rooted in this. We need to provide a cultural exemption, Madam 
Chairman. If we send this message off to Native Americans, in 
particular, that we would not even let the Secretary of Agriculture 
designate an exemption for Native Americans no matter how long their 
tradition is, that will be an insult to Native Americans, an insult to 
multiculturalism in America. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this bill certainly does not 
prevent individual owners from slaughtering a horse and eating the 
horse if they want to. I think that this amendment is unnecessary. It 
would defeat the purpose of the bill. All the correspondence we have 
had with Indian tribes indicates that they do not eat horse meat.
  Horses have not been a part of the food chain in America. I would 
urge the defeat of the amendment and passage of H.R. 503.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment in 
my capacity as the Ranking Member of the Resources Committee which has 
legislative jurisdiction over Indian Affairs.
  This amendment is an insult to Indian Country. It suggests that 
Native Americans consume horse flesh. And in doing so, it is derisive 
of their culture and their society.
  The fact of the matter is that Indians do not eat horse flesh, and 
the three horse slaughter operations in this country do not sell horse 
flesh to Indians.
  The meat of slaughtered horses is all exported by these 
slaughterhouses to foreign markets.
  Indeed, I have before me resolution after resolution from Indian 
Country opposing the slaughter of horses, including from the National 
Congress of American Indians.
  But to be clear, there is another purpose behind this amendment, 
because it seeks to also allow horses to be slaughtered for the 
consumption of people from cultures that eat equine meat. As a general 
matter.
  The fact of the matter is that all of the meat from American 
slaughtered horses is consumed in European or Asian countries by people 
who traditionally eat horse flesh.
  Adoption of this amendment would gut the pending legislation. It 
would render it null and void.

[[Page H6335]]

  My colleagues, do not be fooled, do not be lulled into complacency by 
the attempt of this amendment to garner sympathy for Native Americans, 
when no such sympathy is required.
  A vote for this amendment is the same as a vote against final passage 
of H.R. 503.
  I urge the defeat of the pending amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                  Announcement By the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. King of Iowa.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 229, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 25, as follows

                             [Roll No. 431]

                               AYES--177

     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Honda
     Hulshof
     Jenkins
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Udall (CO)
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)

                               NOES--229

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Cummings
     Doyle
     Evans
     Gallegly
     Green (WI)
     Harris
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     McKinney
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Strickland
     Towns
     Watt
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1432

  Mrs. BIGGERT and Messrs. WYNN, PRICE of Georgia and CLEAVER changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. McHUGH, FORD, OSBORNE, KUHL of New York, Ms. GINNY BROWN-
WAITE of Florida, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. GOODE, and Mr. AKIN changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 431, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


              Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 256, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 432]

                               AYES--149

     Akin
     Baca
     Baker
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)

[[Page H6336]]


     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hulshof
     Jenkins
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)

                               NOES--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Doyle
     Evans
     Gallegly
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Harris
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     McKinney
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Strickland
     Towns
     Watt
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina and Mr. McINTYRE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 432, the King of Iowa 
amendment, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Thomas was allowed to speak out of order.)


     Moment of Silence in Memory of Former Member of the House of 
                      Representatives, Bob Mathias

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Costa, Mr. Nunes and 
myself, I would like to advise the House that this past week an 
individual passed away, a former Member of the House of 
Representatives.
  Some of you didn't have the privilege of knowing him in person, but 
all of you knew of him. Bob Mathias as a 17-year-old high school 
student went to London and came home with a gold medal in the 
decathlon. Four years later, he went to Helsinki and came home with a 
gold medal in the decathlon. Bob Mathias was a member of this House 
from 1966 to 1974.
  Bob Mathias thought of himself as an ordinary person. Could we 
please, in recognition of an extraordinary human being, offer a moment 
of silence?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members will rise and observe a moment of 
silence.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, under the rule, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rehberg) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 503) to 
amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, 
moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or 
donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human 
consumption, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 981, 
he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of H.R. 503 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the motion to instruct on H.R. 5122, and the motion to 
permit closed conference meetings on H.R. 5122.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 263, 
noes 146, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 433]

                               AYES--263

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holt

[[Page H6337]]


     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--146

     Akin
     Baker
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hulshof
     Jenkins
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Udall (CO)
     Walden (OR)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Doyle
     Evans
     Gallegly
     Green (WI)
     Harris
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Lewis (CA)
     McKinney
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Nadler
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Strickland
     Towns
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1501

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that, because I was taking my 
children to their first day of school, I missed one vote on September 
7, 2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 981 
(Providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 503 to amend the 
Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, 
delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of 
horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption.).

                          ____________________