Providing for 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.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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.

Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining on this side of the aisle at this point?

He has 10\1/2\ minutes because time was yielded to him.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walter Jones.

A parliamentary inquiry. Could you explain the remaining time that is available.

Who has the right to close?

At this time I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) to respond.

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.

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.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) in opposition.

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

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Chairman, does he have the right to close or do I have the right to close?

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. 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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Well, there are requirements for the transport under USDA. The problem is USDA does not enforce those requirements.

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.

And 20 percent of the horse population, in reporting data out of California and everywhere else, suggests absolutely the opposite.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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. 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. 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.

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?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 more minute.

But, you know, nothing will change under this bill.

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.

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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

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.)

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the House Agriculture Committee.

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee.

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. 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. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

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).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

national organizations have to this legislation, is that he does not address that in his bill.

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.)

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).

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

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.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side and who has the right to close.

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.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.