Legislative Issues & Policies - American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act

Introduction
Legislation has been introduced in the last few Congresses to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

House Bill
In February 2005, Congressmen John Sweeney (R-NY) and Ed Whitfield (R-KY) introduced federal legislation to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption. The bill would amend the Horse Protection Act (HPA), which was enacted in 1970 to prohibit the showing, transport or sale of horses that have been subjected to any painful process to accentuate their gate. The Animal & Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture enforces the HPA.

The bill would amend the HPA to prohibit the shipping, transporting, or sale of horses for slaughter for human consumption. Such activities would be a violation of the HPA and subject any person who knowingly violates the Act to penalties of up to $3,000 and/or one year in jail for the first offense and up to $5,000 and/or two years in jail for a second offense. An offender may also be subject to civil penalties of $2,000 for each violation.

The bill authorizes $5 million for enforcement.

The bill has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. No hearings have been scheduled on this legislation.

The bill had 148 co-sponsors as of late January, 2006.

Senate Bill
Companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senator John Ensign (R-NV). The Virgie S. Arden American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S. 1915) would prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Co-sponsors include Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Trent Lott (R-MS), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jim DeMint (R-SC).

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. No hearings have been scheduled on this legislation.

Congressional Action - USDA Appropriations Bill Amendment

The proponents of the federal ban have also sought to cut-off federal funding for USDA personnel who inspect horses at the three slaughter facilities.

Last June, during consideration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations bill, the House approved an amendment that would prohibit USDA from using federal funds to pay salaries and expenses of USDA personnel to inspect horses intended for slaughter. The provision was included in the USDA appropriations bill on a vote of 269 to 158.

The amendment was offered by Congressmen John Sweeney (R-NY), Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Jack Spratt (D-SC), Nick Rahall II (D-WV) and Jim Moran (D-VA), who each spoke in support. Speaking in opposition to the amendment were Congressmen Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Steve King (R-IA).

The Senate also added this provision to its version of the USDA Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations bill. The amendment was offered by Senators John Ensign (R-NV), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Trent Lott (R-MS), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). It passed 68 to 29.

The funding ban survived the Conference Committee between House and Senate negotiators over the final language, although in an altered form. The Conference agreed to the provision, but delayed its effective date for 120 days to early March, 2006.

The President signed the USDA appropriations bill into law last December.

Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, all horses sent to slaughter, and the process itself, must be inspected by USDA personnel. The expectation was that without such USDA inspection, the buyers of horses intended for slaughter will not purchase the animals or the horsemeat and the process will effectively be stopped.

Despite the de-funding provision, the Secretary of Agriculture maintained that USDA still had authority to permit the three U.S.-based slaughter facilities to hire their own inspectors and continue to operate past March. A petition to allow the facilities to hire private inspectors was filed with USDA and approved by the Department in February, 2006. This permitted the facilities to create a “fee-for-service” inspection system and continue to operate.

On February 14, 2006 a coalition of humane groups field a suit in federal court against USDA challenging the Department’s authority to grant this permit to the slaughter facilities. This suit has now been dismissed.

Congressional Action - House Passes American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act

On September 7, 2006, the House of Representatives passed the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (H.R. 503) on a vote of 263 to 146 after a four hour debate on the bill and several amendments to it.

Twenty-five Members of the House spoke during the often-spirited debate on the bill, expressing both support and opposition. Although six amendments were made in order for consideration by the House Rules Committee, only two were offered.

The first amendment was offered by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee and an opponent of the bill. It would have required that the Secretary of Agriculture certify that sufficient horse sanctuaries existed for unwanted horses before the law could take effect. Mr. Goodlatte argued that the effect of the bill would be to increase the number of unwanted horses and his amendment would have required the Secretary to indicate there were enough facilities to care for these animals.

It was opposed by the sponsors of the bill and defeated 229 to 177.

The second amendment was offered by Representative Steve King (R-IA) and would have exempted “Native Americans and people from other cultures that eat equine meat” from the prohibitions. This amendment was defeated 256 to 149.

Following the consideration of these two amendments the House passed the legislation.

The bill was referred to the Senate. The Senate did not consider the bill prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.

AHC Position
The AHC is neutral on the legislation because it has organizations and individual members both supporting and opposing a federal legislative ban.