H.R. 503, A BILL TO AMEND THE 

HORSE PROTECTION ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 25, 2006 

Serial No. 109-127 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2006 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

30-795PDF 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

 (EX OFFICIO)

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

 Ranking Member 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO) 

(II)
CONTENTS 

Page 

Testimony of: 

Sweeney, Hon. John E., Member of Congress, State of New York.................................. 22 

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture............................................. 31 

Pickens, Boone, Chief Executive Officer, BP Capital........................................................ 37 

Beaver, Bonnie V., DVM, Executive Director, American College of Veterinary 

Behaviorists, Texas A&M University............................................................................ 40 

Hogan, Patricia, VMD, ACVS, New Jersey Equine Clinic................................................ 105 

Corey, Douglas G., President-Elect, American Association of Equine Practitioners........ 110 

Williams, Russell, Vice Chairman, American Horse Council; Vice President, Hanover 

Shoe Farms..................................................................................................................... 131 

Koehler, Dick, Beltex Corporation ..................................................................................... 134 

(III) 

(1) 

H.R. 503, A BILL TO AMEND THE HORSE 

PROTECTION ACT 

TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:11 p.m., in Rooms 

2322 and 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns 

(Chairman) presiding. 

 Members present: Representatives Upton, Cubin, Radanovich, Bass, 

Pitts, Bono, Ferguson, Otter, Murphy, Blackburn, Barton [ex officio], 

Schakowsky, Green, Gonzalez, and Baldwin. 

 Also present: Representative Burton. 

 Staff present: Chris Leahy, Policy Coordinator; Will Carty, 

Professional Staff Member; Jonathon Cordone, Minority Counsel; Alec 

Gerlach, Minority Research and Press Assistant; Consuela Washington, 

Senior Minority Counsel; and Billy Harvard, Legislative Clerk. 

 MR. STEARNS. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to 

order. Our hearing today on H.R. 503, a bill to amend the Horse 

Protection Act, is surrounded by passionate advocates on both sides, and 

we appreciate that. What is notable is that all the passionate advocates 

care deeply about the welfare of horses, the humane conditions for their 

care, and have strong opinions about what this bill could mean for their 

livelihood, the horse industry and the beloved horses they all care about. 

And I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Chairman Ed 

Whitfield, for his hard work in bringing this important issue to the fore, 

his strong commitment to the welfare of horses, and his support for a 

comprehensive and objective hearing so Members will be able to better 

understand the issues that are involved and the positions of the various 

stakeholders. 

 This bill amends the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, 

transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, 

selling or donation of any horse or other equine to be slaughtered for 

human consumption. Violators of the prohibition in the bill would be 

subject to specific criminal and civil penalties and prison terms. The 

authorization for administering the Horse Protection Act would be 

increased from $500,000 to $5 million annually. The bill is intended to 
2

prevent the transportation and processing of horses for food and other 

products and the alleged inhumane treatment of those animals in their 

transportation and slaughter in the process. The bill permits the USDA 

to detain, for examination and evidence, any horse for which it has 

probable cause that the animal will be slaughtered and processed for 

food. 

 My colleagues, I think both sides can agree that the case of the 

abandoned or unwanted horse is one we all want to resolve. Supporters 

of H.R. 503 contend that many of the horses headed for the processing 

facilities suffer injury, severe stress in transport, and face an inhumane 

death under substandard conditions. They argue that the markets for the 

horse meat products produced at these processing facilities, mainly in 

Europe and Japan, perpetuate these inhumane conditions and contribute 

to the abuse of American horses. 

 Now the opponents of H.R. 503 argue that the unwanted horse is one 

of the main reasons there is a market for these animals at these 

processing facilities, and that better care and euthanasia practices would 

help resolve the issue of poor and underfunded care of horses. The 

opponents of the legislation also point out that eliminating the market for 

horse products and meat will lead to an explosion of horses that require 

care, and they claim over 80,000, and that would overburden the current 

capacity to provide adequate and humane care both in terms of facilities 

and financial resources. And what cost would be incurred because of 

this overburden? Would tax payers have to pay for the increased 

resources required? The supporters of the legislation believe that there is 

an adequate capacity for the care of unwanted horses and there is enough 

financial support to absorb these animals into the current care facility. 

 As someone who is from Florida, Ocala, Florida, horse country, I can 

understand the emotions that run deep with an issue that not only 

represents our responsibility to care for animals properly and with 

humanity, but truly captures a culture and a way of living that is uniquely 

American. I am an animal and horse lover and like all of us, want to find 

ways to avoid the unwanted horse scenario. That said, I am not a horse 

owner, a racing horse breeder, a farmer, or an animal processor. So I still 

am a bit distant from those perspectives on this issue and understand that 

this problem means much more to those who work and live in the 

American horse industry. I do, however, think whatever we propose, we 

must have a full understanding of the ultimate effects of the American 

horse population, no matter how we proceed, because there are 

arguments presented on both sides that seem to paint a pretty bleak 

picture for a large number of horses and their caregivers in America, in 

the event legislation is or is not passed. Therefore, I believe our focus 

today should be on discussing the best way to eliminate the unwanted 
3

horse problem and how to find more humane approaches to that problem, 

as well as to study the particular issues presented by this bill. I also 

believe that today presents us with an opportunity to better understand 

what the bill could mean for the financial obligations involved in caring 

for additional horses, for choosing plans, or for supporting better and 

more humane ways of euthanizing unwanted and abandoned animals. 

 Again, I want to commend all of you for participating in this hearing 

today and your belief in protecting and treating horses humanely. I 

would also like to thank in particular Chairman Goodlatte and 

Congressman Sweeney for joining us today. Both of you, I appreciate 

your time, as well as the distinguished panel that we have that follows, 

and I look forward to their testimony. And with that, I recognize the 

Ranking Member, Ms. Schakowsky. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF STEARNS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Good afternoon. Our hearing today on H.R. 503, a bill to amend the “Horse 

Protection Act,” is surrounded by passionate advocates on both sides of the bill. What is 

notable is that all the passionate advocates care deeply about the welfare of horses, 

humane conditions for their care, and have strong opinions about what this bill could 

mean for their livelihoods, the horse industry, and the beloved horses they all care about. 

First, I’d like to thank my friend and colleague, Chairman Ed Whitfield, for his hard work 

in bringing this important issue to the fore, his strong commitment to the welfare of 

horses, and his support for a comprehensive and objective hearing so members will be 

able to understand better the issues involved and the positions of the various stakeholders. 

H.R. 503 amends the “Horse Protection Act” to prohibit the “shipping, transporting, 

moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of any horse 

or other equine to be slaughtered for human consumption.” Violators of the prohibitions 

in the bill would be subject to specified criminal and civil penalties and prison terms. 

The authorization for administering the Horse Protection Act would be increased from 

$500,000 to $5 million annually. The bill is intended to prevent the transportation and 

processing of horses for food and other products and the alleged inhumane treatment of 

those animals in their transportation and slaughter in the process. The bill permits the 

USDA to detain for examination and evidence any horse for which it has probable cause 

that the animal will be slaughter and processed for food. 

I think both sides can agree that the case of the abandoned or “unwanted” horse is 

one we all want to resolve. Supporters of H.R. 503 contend that many of the horses 

headed for the processing facilities suffer injury and severe stress in transport and face an 

inhumane death under substandard conditions. They argue that the markets for the horse 

meat products produced at these processing facilities -- mainly in Europe and Japan -- 

perpetuate these inhumane conditions and contribute to abuse of American horses. The 

opponents of H.R. 503 argue that the “unwanted” horse is one of the main reasons there 

is a market for these animals at these processing facilities and that better care and 

euthanasia practices would help resolve the issue of poor and under-funded care of 

horses. The opponents of the legislation also point out that eliminating the market for 

horse products and meat will lead to an explosion of horses that require care -- they claim 

over 80,000 -- and that this would overburden the current capacities to provide adequate 

and humane care, both in terms of facilities and financial resources, and what cost 
4

would be incurred because of this overburden? Would taxpayers have to pay for 

the increased resources required? The supporters of the legislation believe that there is 

adequate capacity for the care of unwanted horses and there is enough financial support 

to absorb those animals into current care facilities. 

As someone who is from Florida horse country, I can understand the emotion that 

runs deep with an issue that not only represents our responsibility to care for our animals 

properly and with humanity but truly captures a culture and way of living that is uniquely 

American. I am an animal and horse lover, and like all of us, want to find ways to avoid 

the “unwanted horse” scenario. That said, I’m not a horse owner, a racing horse breeder, 

a farmer, or an animal processor so I still am a bit distanced from those perspectives on 

this issue and understand that this problem means much more to those who work and live 

in the American horse industry. I do, however, think whatever we propose, we must have 

a full understanding of the ultimate effects on the American horse population no matter 

how we proceed because there are arguments presented on both sides that seem to paint a 

pretty bleak picture for a large number of horses and their caregivers in America in the 

event legislation is or is not passed. Therefore, I believe our focus today should be on 

discussing the best way to eliminate the “unwanted” horse problem and how to find more 

humane approaches to that problem, as well as to study the particular issues presented by 

H.R. 503. I also believe that today presents us with an opportunity to better understand 

what the bill could mean for the financial obligations involved in caring for additional 

horses, for closing plants, or for supporting better and more humane ways of euthanizing 

unwanted and abandoned animals. 

Again, I want commend all of you before us today for your strong beliefs and 

passion to do what is right and just -- protecting and treating horses humanely, ensuring 

we do what’s best for them, and for educating the Congress about an issue that means so 

much to American culture and history. I’d also like to thank, in particular, Chairman 

Goodlatte and Representative Sweeney for joining us today, as well as the distinguish 

panel before us. We look forward to you testimony. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding 

today’s hearing on the issue of horse slaughter for human consumption. 

As a strong supporter of animal rights, a horse lover, and a former horse 

owner, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of H.R. 503, the American Horse 

Slaughter Prevention Act, which would put an end to this horrible 

practice. I would like to welcome Representatives Sweeney and 

Goodlatte, and I look forward to your views on this issue. 

 Horses are some of the most beautiful and beloved domesticated 

animals on earth. Just this summer the story of Barbaro, the Kentucky 

Derby winner that shattered his leg at the start of the Preakness, has 

transfixed millions of Americans. Since the injury, the thoroughbred has 

received an incredible outpouring of letters, if he can read, I don’t know, 

flowers, homemade signs, apples, and carrots, from Americans around 

the country. Fans have even made pilgrimages to Barbaro’s care facility 

in Pennsylvania to wish him well in his fond recovery. Americans are 

rooting for Barbaro because they have been taken with his strength, his 

beauty, and his strong personality. Americans have long appreciated 

horses for transport on ranches, as police mounts, as cherished 

companions. The American Horse Council reports that 1.9 million 
5

Americans currently own horses, as I once did. 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 are creatures of splendor and beauty that should be treated with 

dignity and respect in life and death. 

 However, in 2005, over 90,000 horses were slaughtered at three 

American-based foreign-owned plants. The meat was shipped to Europe 

and Asia for consumption. Tens of thousands of horses were also 

shipped live to Canada where they were slaughtered for consumption 

abroad. Horses bound for slaughter must endure inhumane conditions on 

the way to and during slaughter. Horses are shipped frequently for long 

distances in terrible condition. They are crammed together in trucks built 

for cattle and pigs, and because of the crammed conditions, they are 

often trampled. 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 USDA guidelines for 

handling and transporting equines to 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, past 

and former racehorses, all are sent to slaughter. Anyone who has ridden 

a horse and who has been captured by its personality and strength can’t 

support their inhumane slaughter. Not surprisingly, polls from California 

to Virginia show that between 60 and 82 percent of Americans do not 

support horse slaughter. I received hundreds of letters, and I am sure 

other members of the committee have, from constituents who oppose 

horse slaughter and support H.R. 503. 

 Congress has also expressed its desire to end horse slaughter by 

voting to amend the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill to 

ban the practice. That amendment passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 

269 to 158 in the House, and 69 to 28 in the Senate. Unfortunately, the 

USDA has skirted the law and continues to allow horses to be 

slaughtered in the United States. I believe it is time to listen to the 

American public and finally end the barbaric practice of horse slaughter 

by passing H.R. 503. It is long overdue, but I have to say that I also did 

talk yesterday with opponents of this legislation, who described the 

plight of unwanted and abandoned horses and I appreciate that 

recognition by the Chairman and the need to bring that part of the debate 

into consideration today. So I again thank you for holding today’s 

hearing and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 
6

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. The distinguished Chairman 

of the full committee, Mr. Barton. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to put 

my written statement in the record and just speak extemporaneously. I 

want to thank our witnesses for being here. I have gone to some length 

to make sure, in conjunction with Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Stearns, that 

this be a balanced hearing. In our first panel I have my good friend, 

Congressman Sweeney, who is passionately for the bill, and my good 

friend, Bob Goodlatte, who is passionately against the bill. So that is 

certainly balanced. On the next panel I have my good friend and longtime supporter, Mr. Boone Pickens, and his lovely wife, Madeline, who 

are passionately for the bill. And I have the past president of the Texas 

Veterinary Association, Dr. Bonnie Beaver, who I have talked to about it 

several times, who is passionately against the bill. So I am kind of like 

Solomon when he was asked about the baby and his answer was to split 

the baby, this is a tough issue. I am, on balance, opposed to the bill. I 

did send a letter last year to Mr. Whitfield, saying that I would vote for 

last year’s bill if it were to come to a vote, but the more I have learned 

about it, the more I think, on balance, it is the best public policy to be 

against it for a number of reasons. But I have promised that this hearing 

is going to be fair, and I want to commend Mr. Whitfield and Mr. 

Sweeney. For those of you that are supporters of the bill, you couldn’t 

have more passionate, articulate committee-dedicated sponsors than 

those two gentlemen. They have absolutely done everything in a positive 

sense possible to bring this legislation forward, and the result is this 

hearing. And Mr. Goodlatte’s committee, the Agriculture Committee, 

there is going to be a markup of the bill in the very near future. So I 

hope we have a balanced hearing and that we get the facts on the table 

and then we will let the Congress work its will. And with that, I yield 

back. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Thank you Chairman Stearns for holding this hearing. I know that H.R. 503 is an 

emotional issue for some people, and it is my hope that today’s hearing will give us a 

chance to look beyond the emotion and explore the facts of this issue and this bill. 

I thank all of today’s witnesses for coming. It is important that this discussion be 

fair and open, and I think we have the best witnesses from both sides to make sure that is 

the case. 

It is no secret that I am opposed to H.R. 503. And despite what has been said, it is 

not because I dislike horses, or because I had some bad experience with them when I was 

young. My opposition to this bill stems from a realization that this bill comes with some 

negative consequences that I believe are being overlooked. 
7

Ever since this issue was referred to my Committee, I have been bombarded by 

calls, letters, and meeting requests from people inside my own district, and across the 

country. I’ve heard from individual 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 Federation, National 

Cattleman’s Beef Association, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, 

and the Livestock Marketing Association. 

These are just some of the groups opposed to this bill, and these are groups that, 

frankly, I consider to be representative of rural America. They have all said the same 

thing. H.R. 503 will lead to a miserable existence for thousands of horses, and is an 

outright strike at animal agriculture. 

The care and the overall health of the animals—and the rights of their owners—

should always be the primary concerns when taking up legislation of this nature. 

Processing unmanageable and unwanted horses provides a humane alternative to 

continuing a life of discomfort, inadequate care, or abandonment. 

Mandatory USDA inspection, which abides by strict laws monitoring the welfare of 

animals in the processing facility, assures humane handling requirements are met. And I 

would like to note that since last year’s Agriculture Appropriations bill was enacted, the 

three equine processing plants pay for those inspectors out of their own pockets. No 

expense to the taxpayer. 

H.R. 503 provides no alternative for the thousands of horse owners for whom 

continued care of an animal is no longer economical or in some cases humane. We have 

several veterinarians on the panel today, and I look forward to hearing their views on the 

animal welfare side of this issue. 

The other concern that this bill raises for me is one of private property rights. While 

a majority of my constituents live in the Arlington/Fort Worth area, the geography of my 

district is almost entirely rural. Animal agriculture is a large part of the economy for 

much of rural America, and agriculture is already one of the most extensively regulated 

industries in the United States. 

In the name of animal welfare, the USDA tells producers how they can and can’t 

transport their animals. In the name of consumer safety, the USDA tells producers what 

they can and can’t feed their animals. Now we want to tell producers who they can and 

can’t sell they’re animals to. As a long-time proponent of limited government, I take 

issue with that. 

The horse owners in question have fed, housed, and cared for their animals—for 

decades in many cases—at great personal expense. When an animal reaches the point 

when he is no longer productive for the owner, and no one else will purchase the animal, 

who are we to deny an owner the opportunity to recover a small portion of their 

investment? Why should they not be allowed to sell their animal to a legal, humane, and 

closely regulated processing facility? 

Again, I understand that this is an extremely emotional issue for many people, but 

this Congress cannot and must not allow itself to govern by emotion. I’m glad that we 

have this opportunity today to get the facts about equine processing out in the open, and I 

look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses. I would particularly like to thank 

Dick Koehler (KAY-LER) for coming up from Fort Worth. Mr. Koehler runs one of the 

processing plants we here to discuss, and I’m glad we have a good Texan here who 

knows this process on a firsthand basis. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Baldwin. 

 MS. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that 

you are holding this important hearing and it is a timely hearing on H.R. 
8

503, a bill to amend the Horse Protection Act to effectively ban the 

slaughter of horses for human consumption. As one of the nearly 200 

co-sponsors of H.R. 503, I want to express my strong and longstanding 

support for the bill, and I thankfully look forward to the opportunity to 

vote for this legislation in committee and when it reaches the House 

floor, hopefully in the near future. 

 Over 90,000 horses, many of them young and healthy, are 

slaughtered in the United States annually for the purpose of human 

consumption. Most horse meat is sold abroad, with the United States 

exporting about 18,000 metric tons of such meat, valued at $61 million 

last year. Many horses slaughtered each year are either stolen or 

obtained through false pretenses by what are known as killer buyers at 

auction houses, hired by foreigners in the horse meat industry. Equally 

as troubling as the sale of horse meat is the way the animals are killed. 

Horses are often transported to slaughterhouses in crowded trailers, 

where they may wait for more than a day without food or water, an 

inhumane treatment of horses currently allowed under the Department of 

Agriculture regulations. 

 The conditions at some horse slaughterhouses are notorious, and the 

methods of killing are often cruel and inhumane. I believe that the way 

we treat our animals is a reflection of our society as a whole. Given the 

special place that horses occupy in our culture and in our history, and 

most simply because I think it is the right thing to do, we must ensure 

uniform and humane treatment of horses, even when they are abandoned. 

The current horse slaughtering industry is under-regulated and 

encourages theft, fraud, and overbreeding for the purpose of human 

consumption, and that is why I applaud the sponsors of this bill for their 

effort to amend the Horse Protection Act and comprehensively prohibit 

the slaughtering of horses for human consumption. 

 The market demand for horse meat in foreign countries should not 

drive the cruel and unnecessary practice of horse slaughter domestically, 

and I look forward to swift consideration of this bill in committee and in 

the House, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this vital 

hearing. I yield back. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Tammy Baldwin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Thank you Chairman for holding this important and timely hearing on H.R. 503, a 

bill to amend the Horse Protection Act to effectively ban the slaughter of horses for 

human consumption. As one of the nearly 200 co-sponsors of H.R. 503, I want to 

express my strong and long-standing support for the bill and I look forward to voting for 

the legislation when it reaches the House floor in the near future. 
9

Over 90,000 horses, many of them young and healthy, are slaughtered in the United 

States annually for the purpose of human consumption. Most horsemeat is sold abroad, 

with the United States exporting about 18,000 metric tons of such meat valued at $61 

million last year. 

Many horses slaughtered each year are either stolen or obtained through false 

pretenses by “killer-buyers” at auction houses hired by French or Belgian owned 

horsemeat industry. Equally troubling as the sale of horsemeat is the way the animals are 

killed. Horses are often transported to slaughterhouses in crowded trailers, where they 

may wait for more than a day without food and water – an inhumane treatment of horses 

currently allowed under the Department of Agriculture regulations. The conditions at 

horse slaughterhouses are notorious, and the methods of killing are cruel and inhumane. 

Horses are sometimes beat on the neck, head, backs, and legs, and stunned with a metal 

rod into the brain. 

I believe the way we treat our animals is a reflection of our society as a whole. 

Given the special place horses occupy in our culture and history, we must ensure uniform 

and humane treatment of horses, even when they are abandoned. The current horse 

slaughtering industry is under-regulated and encourages theft, fraud, and over-breeding 

for the purpose of human consumption. That is why I applaud the sponsors of this bill for 

their effort to amend the Horse Protection Act and comprehensively prohibit the 

slaughtering of horses for human consumption. The market demand for horsemeat in 

foreign countries should not drive the cruel and unnecessary practice of horse slaughter 

domestically. I look forward to the swift passage of this bill through Committee and the 

House, and thank you again Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. 

 MR. STEARNS. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Bono. 

 MS. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also thank 

you for holding this hearing today. My good friends, Congressman Ed 

Whitfield and Congressman John Sweeney, have been true champions of 

this bill. I am thankful for their efforts and I am with them 100 percent. 

I believe that, for me and for many of my colleagues, the story behind the 

need for this legislation has touched us deeply. I have always enjoyed 

the thrill and the freedom that comes from a great horseback ride. The 

animals are strong, intelligent creatures that deserve our respect. 

However, the processes by which they are slaughtered are anything but 

respectful. I realize many members will concede the point that these 

animals should be treated humanely, but wonder what the Federal nexus 

is. Simply put, the States are looking to the Federal government for 

guidance. The State of Texas tried to ban commercial slaughter of 

horses, but the State courts ruled that the Federal law preempts State law. 

So it is up to Congress to decide whether or not the commercial slaughter 

of horses should continue. 

 But let us look at some of the facts. Currently, there are three 

slaughterhouses in the United States. All three are foreign owned. The 

meat goes to foreigners as well, since there is no market for horse meat 

in the United States. Ending commercial slaughter will not lead to 

increase in abandoned horses, since many which are slaughtered are 

actually stolen from their rightful owners and sold under false pretenses. 

In my home State of California, we have had a ban on horse slaughter for 
10

8 years and have seen no increase in abandoned or neglected horses. 

This bill will not interfere with private property rights, since owners 

could still euthanize a sick horse. Horses bound for the slaughterhouse 

are crammed into double-decker trailers, as my colleague just said. They 

are designed for smaller animals like cattle and they cannot be 

segregated, so many do not even survive the trip, as they are killed en 

route. 

 Finally, the slaughter process itself is grossly inhumane. It is not 

quiet or peaceful. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about undermining a 

longstanding American industry that is out to serve Americans. Instead, 

I am asking for you and my colleagues to take a close and hard look at 

the current practice of horse slaughter and ask yourselves if this is 

something our country should condone. It is my opinion that based on 

the facts before us and the States looking to the Federal government for a 

nationwide policy, our answer can and must be against the commercial 

slaughter of horses. Thank you again. I look forward to the testimony 

today, I welcome my two colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

 MR. STEARNS. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Green. 

 MR. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask for a 

full statement to be placed in the record. 

 MR. STEARNS. By unanimous consent; so ordered. 

 MR. GREEN. First, I would like to thank you and our Ranking 

Member, Ms. Schakowsky, for holding this hearing and ultimately the 

markup tomorrow. I want to also thank Congressman Whitfield and 

Congressman Sweeney for their dedication in number of terms. I don’t 

know how many times I have been a co-sponsor of it, but it has been a 

number of years for your dedication to this. We have 201 co-sponsors, 

including myself, who believe horses should not be slaughtered for 

human consumption. According to the USDA, 90,000 horses were 

slaughtered for human consumption in 2005. Most of the horses 

obviously were raised for other purposes, a majority for riding, but no 

longer wanted by their owners. They are collected by dealers who 

supply the foreign-owned plants from auctions, boarding facilities, and 

elsewhere. Unlike cows and pigs and other animals, horses are not raised 

in feedlots for human consumption, so horse owners often don’t know 

who they are selling their animal to and it may be actually going to 

human consumption. 

 Since Americans don’t eat horse meat, it is shipped overseas. The 

biggest consumers of horse meat are France, Italy, Belgium, and Japan, 

which consider it a delicacy and often used as an alternative to beef. I 

think it is ironic that Japan, for instance, regulates the amount of 

American beef that is imported into that country, but these regulations 
11

are not imposed on American horse meat. Congress has passed several 

amendments in the past to end horse slaughter for consumer 

consumption, but the USDA has not implemented an outright ban. When 

Congress cut USDA funding for inspections of the horse meat, the plants 

started paying USDA on a fee-for-service basis, continuing inspections. 

It is time we passed legislation that would permanently ban this practice 

and end horse slaughter for human consumption. And again, Mr. 

Chairman, I am glad that the panelists are here today, and normally from 

Texas, I would support--but in this case, since two of three plants are in 

Texas, I am going to make an exception for my rule, that is why I am a 

co-sponsor of this bill and I am looking forward to the markup 

tomorrow, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Mrs. Cubin. 

 MRS. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make it 

clear right now, at the very beginning, that 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 assault on that uniquely American ideal. 

 Speaking of an American ideal, there are many here today who will 

say that we are slaughtering young, strong horses, which are symbols of 

the American West. I am here today to tell you that this is not the case. I 

am from Wyoming and one of the first memories I have in my life is 

sitting on the back of a horse. I love horses as much as anyone here, but 

I am here today to tell you that this is not the case, that we are not 

striking out at symbols of the American West. Many of these horses are 

old, ill, and starving due to overpopulation or they have otherwise ceased 

in their proper function. Ninety thousand horses per year must be 

adopted if this bill is enacted. When you take into consideration the fact 

that the wild horses that roam the plains of Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and 

Colorado can’t be adopted, how will be able to adopt an additional 

90,000 horses that otherwise will be in the system? 

 There isn’t a practical answer for that if this bill is enacted. But you 

don’t need to take my word for it. Mr. Chairman, I have heard from over 

60 reputable horse organizations, animal health organizations, and 

agricultural organizations, such as the American Veterinary Medical 

Association, the American Association of Equine Pet Practitioners, the 

American Quarter Horse Association, the American Painted Horse 

Association, owners, and more than a dozen State horse councils and 

others who are opposed to this legislation. Most importantly, I have 

heard loud and clearly from folks who know and love horses more than 

anyone in this room, Wyoming’s ranchers. They are the ones who breed 

their horses. They help deliver them at birth. They train them. They 
12

feed them every day. 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 in the harsh seasons on the 

high plains and in the Rocky Mountains. They have to know in order for 

them to survive. 

 Mr. Chairman, these folks know their animals like they know 

themselves, and yet today we were 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 a bill that 

will have untold disastrous effects on the ecosystem. Today we are 

considering a bill that puts the feelings of other animal lovers above the 

rights of ownership. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely admire the motivation of 

the people who are here in support of this bill today. If only their love of 

these regal creatures could take care of all of the needs these wonderful 

animals have, the problem would be solved, but in practicality, that is not 

the case. We can’t adopt another 90,000 horses a year. With that, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I want to make this clear right now at the very beginning 

– no matter how you look at it, this is poor legislation. 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. 

Speaking of an American ideal, there are many here today who will say that we are 

slaughtering young, strong horses, which are symbols of the American West. I am here 

today to tell you that this not the case. Many of these horses are old, ill, starving due to 

overpopulation or have otherwise ceased their proper function. 

But you don't need to take my word for it. 

Mr. Chairman, I have heard from over 60 reputable horse organizations, animal 

health organizations, and agricultural organizations such as the American Veterinarian 

Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the American 

Quarter Horse Association, the American Painted Horse Association, owners, and more 

than a dozen state horse councils opposed to this legislation. 

Most importantly, I have heard loud and clear from folks who know and love horses 

more than anyone in this room – Wyoming's ranchers. 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 out on the high plains or up in the Rocky Mountains, they 

have to know in order to survive. 

Mr. Chairman, 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 the 

humane choice for their horses. Today we are considering a bill that will sentence 
13

innumerable horses to a horrific life of pain and suffering. Today, we are considering a 

bill that will have untold disastrous effects on the ecosystem. Today we are considering a 

bill that puts the whims of supposed animal lovers above the rights of ownership. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Gonzalez. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

welcome to one and all. Obviously this is something that many people 

have very strong feelings about. I think someone earlier said that much 

of this topic is emotional in nature, so let me go ahead and defend 

emotion, human emotion. I think emotions lead to compassion and that 

is not a bad thing, and maybe our laws should reflect some of that 

compassion. But in this particular debate, before I became a co-sponsor, 

I did meet with individuals who are well versed with the issues and the 

facts, and I think that our emotion and our compassion at the end of this 

debate will be fully buttressed and supported by the facts in this 

particular piece of legislation. And I want to have a good faith debate, 

but I just don’t want individuals to simply say that this is totally 

emotionally based. And that is not a bad starting place and I think it 

gives us a road map that we can follow and I do truly believe, after 

listening to the proponents and the opponents, that the proponents 

present a more factual case in support of this particular piece of 

legislation. And I yield back. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. We are going to continue the 

opening statements. I would like to announce to everybody in the 

audience, we are able to get the downstairs room, which is 2123, which 

is much larger. And I am sorry that so many people have to stand. We 

are going to finish the opening statements and I urge everybody to keep 

within the 3 minutes, listen to our two distinguished members of 

Congress, and then before the next panel comes up, we will go 

downstairs and then we have a line outside that is waiting. I want 

everybody to get in to hear this very important hearing. So we asked for 

a bigger room and we got the bigger room. So with that, we will 

continue our opening statements. Mrs. Blackburn. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to waive. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Murphy, 

 MR. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing and I am looking forward to hearing it and getting 

information from all sides here. I come to this from the perspective of 

my memories as a child. My first job was mucking stalls at my 

neighbor’s farm. We had one farm with quarter horses and one with 

thoroughbreds. In exchange, I would get 50 cents an hour and I could 

ride the horses to my heart’s content, even though I could barely come up 

to their shoulder. Now, as a Congressman, I represent racetrack and the 
14

farmers who own their horses. I represent the owners of the Heinz Hitch, 

some of those large horses that pull that wagon along. But, I don’t 

represent horses. I represent the farmers who own them. And I have 

been listening so far to the comments, a number of things have come up 

here, where we are concerned about the care, the transportation, the 

slaughter, and the treatment of horses, all of which are very important. 

As far as I can tell, there are laws covering how farmers should 

humanely raise horses and cows and pigs and chickens and goats, et 

cetera. There are laws covering how horses should be transported, 

whether going to the racetracks or going somewhere else. There are laws 

covering how a horse should be slaughtered. There are laws prohibiting 

farmers from killing their own horse when it reaches the end of their life. 

There are laws that prohibit farmers from burying a horse on their land. 

 When a farmer has a horse that is old or can no longer be ridden, 

raced, or worked, and this includes many Pennsylvania farmers who are 

Amish and Mennonite, the farmer can keep the horse in pasture, paying 

for the care and feeding and health and upkeep. That costs them. There 

are laws, in fact, that say they have to do that, or else they are accused of 

abusing the animal and treating it inhumanely. Or the farmer can have 

the horse put down, euthanized, shot, or taken away. If shot, that meat 

will get used for meat in a zoo. If euthanized, it gets sent off for 

rendering, which is used in products like lipstick. A horse can be 

cremated and a horse can be buried somewhere, but all of those cost the 

farmer a great deal of money. But the question comes down to whether 

or not the farmer has the right to decide. 

 Now I, in having ridden many horses in my lifetime and grew fond 

of them too. But the question is not how I feel about the horse. The 

question is, does the farmer have a right to decide that this is livestock? 

So they have a right to decide how what happens to that horse at the end 

of its life. Similarly, does a farmer have a right to decide what happens 

to his cows, his pigs, his goats, his chickens, and other livestock as well? 

Or do we anthropomorphize them and become emotionally attached and 

somehow say that the rules are different? Now let us keep in mind the 

examples we are hearing and I am open to hearing these points about 

how horses may be inhumanely treated against the law and how they 

may be transported, slaughtered, or raised. All of us should stand up 

against that mistreatment. Those are the laws in place and are there for 

good reason. I want to know however, if there are specifics as relates to 

when horses are used for human consumption, that it is somehow 

different. Let us not blend them all together. Let us look at those things 

in particular. 

 Unless we are going to outlaw all transportation, all rendering, all 

euthanizing, all killing of horses for any reason, somehow the irony is 
15

not laws. Last week, as we were arguing stem cell research, the issue 

about embryos, about why some said it was okay to discard some 

embryos was because they were unwanted, and so people were saying it 

is okay, we can use those, and others were saying, no, it is not okay. It 

was a question in the debates very much between those who said even an 

embryo is life, it should be preserved, and those who said, no, it is 

unwanted. Do what you want with it. And now the irony is, we have 

flipped that argument the other way. If a horse is unwanted, you can’t 

have it that way. You can’t use it in a way that the farmer wants. 

 Now farmers are businesses across America. Agriculture is the 

number one business in Pennsylvania. As I said before, we have many 

Amish and Mennonite farmers out there, who at the end of the horse’s 

life see this as livestock, as a means of making some money. And 

instead, if we say that, no, you can’t, you have to raise this horse, 

continue to pay for this horse, where do we get the money from to do 

that? Or do we say someone has to adopt it. Who is going to adopt the 

horse? Or if we say to the farmer, the horse will still have to be killed, 

who is going to pay for that? These are all important questions and I am 

hoping that from some we hear from today, that it includes farmers who 

have to foot the bill, for the farmers who refer to this as livestock. So I 

am looking forward to this hearing and hearing about some details of this 

in answer to some of those questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Ferguson. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this 

hearing and thanks to our witnesses, thanks to Chairman Goodlatte and 

Mr. Sweeney for joining us and the other witnesses we will hear from 

today. I am pleased to express my strong support for H.R. 503. I am a 

co-sponsor of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This 

legislation enjoys broad and bipartisan support in this Congress. It is 

strongly supported by the veterinarians, the horse racing and 

thoroughbred industries, animal welfare groups, and countless 

Americans across the country. 

 Currently, nearly 100,000 horses are slaughtered in American each 

year, killed not solely because they are old or sick, but rather so their 

meat can be eaten by humans. Human consumption of American horses 

is rampant in Asia and some European countries. Worse, the process of 

how these horses are killed in American slaughterhouses often does not 

follow United States law. An existing Federal law that governs how 

horses are transported to slaughterhouses only encourages cruel 

treatment. For example, horses can be transported for up to 28 hours and 

during that time can be denied food and water. It is clear that in the 1996 

Commercial Transportation of Equines for Slaughter Act, and in the 

2002 Agriculture Department regulations that enforce that law, clearly 
16

these are not working and in fact are only serving to create additional 

incentives for ongoing cruelty to horses. 

 H.R. 503 would ban the slaughter of horses in America for human 

consumption abroad. This is a needed reform and it is long overdue. 

Federal law should not, as the 1996 law and its 2002 relations do, should 

not permit the inhumane treatment of horses as they are transported to 

slaughterhouses where their meat is packaged and shipped overseas for 

human consumption. The House last year voted overwhelmingly in 

support of an appropriations amendment that restricted Federal funds 

from being used to facilitate the slaughter of horses for human 

consumption, the ideal amendment in the Senate won approval with 

broad and bipartisan support. Clearly, both bodies of Congress have 

already taken a stand on this issue. Slaughtering horses for human 

consumption abroad is completely unacceptable and this practice must be 

stopped. 

 I want to commend my colleagues, Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Sweeney 

and others, for championing this cause and it really represents, I think, 

the will of Congress and the will of the American people. I also want to 

add a word of thanks to the Humane Society of the United States and 

other advocacy organizations. They have tirelessly and responsibly 

advocated the cause of this legislation and I believe their work has both 

reduced animal cruelty and frankly, raised awareness for animal care in 

this country and around the world. Again, I want to thank our witnesses 

for being here today and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for considering this 

issue. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New 

Hampshire, Mr. Bass. 

 MR. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your holding 

this hearing and I appreciate the work of the two Members who are in 

front of us and my friend from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. And I think 

this is going to be a helpful hearing and I hope we can move this bill 

forward. I think it is a god bill and I think there are some misconceptions 

about its intent. There is nothing in here that says that a horse cannot be 

killed. There is, frankly, nothing in this bill, as far as I can tell, that says 

that a horse can’t be eaten. But what it does say is that you can’t make 

money off of the slaughter of horses for human consumption for food. 

 Now we do have, indeed, on farms pigs, chickens, cows, and so 

forth, which are either milked or slaughtered and so forth, but they are 

raised for that purpose, and I think that when one deals with the issue of 

horses, it is different. And although I think that there are some problems 

in this bill that need to be addressed, for example, the export of horses to 

other countries such as Canada and Mexico and whether or not they--

what would happen under those circumstances, whether or not there are 
17

facilities, rescue centers, sanctuaries, and so forth that are adequate to 

accommodate these animals should the slaughter prohibition go into 

effect, and also whether or not there would be adequate food supply for 

animals in zoos that need horse meat in order to survive. But ultimately, 

I don’t think that a horse is the same as a cow or a pig because, in 

America, they have not been raised for the purpose of human 

consumption to begin with and this is something that I think is a relevant 

issue that needs to be addressed and I hope the committee takes action on 

this bill, and I yield back. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Upton. Mr. Upton is not here. Mr. Otter. 

 MR. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all of the 

interest in this bill. Mr. Sweeney and I have had many long discussions 

about it. I would say that I could probably challenge anybody in this 

room, as many horses that I have owned. I have rodeoed since I was 18 

years old and had horses all of those years. I still rodeo and I still have 

quite a few horses and as many as 80 horses at one time. And I do have 

a lot of problems with this bill, and probably the largest problem I have 

with this bill is that there are States that are having problems in enforcing 

their laws. We enforce our laws in Idaho, and if there are States that are 

having problems enforcing their laws, well then, I would suggest that 

they go to their State legislatures. But I don’t know why the Federal 

government is involved in this. You know, I have looked around and it 

is pretty hard for me to find any constitutional basis for the Federal 

government to get into the business of regulating horse slaughter. 

Humane treatment, fine, but once the horse is slaughtered, I think--or any 

animal is slaughtered, we do have State laws and we obey those laws. So 

if you are not obeying the laws in your State, then you ought to go back 

to your State and ask that question. 

 Everybody has asked a question thus far. So who pays the bill? 

What do we do with these animals if we are not going to dispose of them 

in the way that we have? And I would tell you where we can start. Right 

now the Bureau of Land Management has a feed lot, or several feed lots, 

scattered around the western United States, where they have had to take 

the wild horses off the range because of a multitude of problems, 

including disease, overpopulation, and we are now spending upwards of 

$20 million a year to feed lot those horses, put those horses in confined 

feeding so that we can take care of them because you can’t kill them, as 

you know. Wild horses have been exempt for a long, long time, but wild 

horses are not private property. 

 And so I think that this bill is going to raise a whole lot more 

questions than it is answers. The questions of private property, the 

questions of what do we tell the people? What do we tell the people that 

do eat horse meat, that need to eat horse meat? We are going to have 
18

these horses being put down and not consumed, and at the same time 

there are millions of people in the world that are starving to death. So I 

would just ask the question that, before we run headlong into trying to 

solve the problem for a few States, that we then implement some sort of 

mandatory program over all 50, that we take a look at truly what we are 

doing here, because it is going to be expensive, it is going to be 

dysfunctional, and I think, in the long run, it is going to create a lot more 

problems than it solves. I yield back. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. I think all of the committee 

members have had a chance to speak, and with unanimous consent 

agreement, we will allow Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky to have his 

chance, perhaps, for an opening statement, unless the gentlelady had 

waived. So Mr. Whitfield, unanimous consent to allow you an opening 

statement. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Stearns, and I genuinely 

appreciate this opportunity on this important bill. I want to thank John 

Sweeney for his leadership. A lot of people have asked this question: 

who pays the bill for unwanted horses? And I find it interesting that 

everybody is talking about, well, the Federal government should be 

responsible for this. What about the breeders? The largest breeder in 

America today are the quarter horse people. They had 144,000 new foals 

last year. Do they have any responsibility at all? Well, I think they do. 

Why should the taxpayers be taking care of this? They talk about 

unwanted horses because they are the most prolific breeders in the 

country. The thoroughbred industry is breeding 34,000 horses a year, 

and the quarter horse, over 144,000. So let us talk about breeder 

responsibility. 

 Now, Mr. Otter mentioned about why is the Federal government 

involved? If you look at Texas, you will find out that Texas has a State 

law that has been on the books for many years that makes it illegal to sell 

horse meat as food for human consumption. And John Cornyn and the 

Attorney General wrote a legal opinion and said this was a criminal 

offense. Beltex and Dallas Crown are engaged in this activity; it is a 

criminal offense. A lawsuit was filed by Beltex and by Dallas Crown 

and they won that suit because the Federal judge said this is about 

interstate commerce, this is about Federal preemption, and if it is going 

to be changed, the Federal government has to change it. That is why we 

are here looking at this bill, because only the Federal government can 

change it. 

 Now, they did a poll in Texas and they have done others around the 

country. Eighty-nine percent of the people polled in Texas didn’t even 

know horses were being slaughtered in Texas. Seventy-two percent of 

the people said they are opposed to horses being slaughtered for human 
19

consumption. Seventy-seven percent said they would oppose any 

legislation to legalize horse slaughter in Texas. Because, after John 

Corning’s legal opinion, Betty Brown introduced legislation to make it 

legal and she couldn’t even get it through the Texas legislature. So that 

is why the Federal government is involved in this, because the States 

can’t do anything about it. 

 Now, people who say that animal rights groups are behind this bill, I 

would just give you a list here of individuals and organizations, like the 

Bull Riders Association and every horse group that you can name, 

opposed to this bill, we can name groups that support this bill. Every 

veterinarian you find opposed to this bill, we can find a veterinarian to 

support this bill. We have corporate leaders that are out there leading the 

charge to pass this legislation because they are responsible. We talk 

about private property rights. What about the individual whose horse is 

stolen? And we know many horses ended up at slaughter because they 

are stolen. And this new program that was started back in 1997 or 1998, 

in which the slaughterhouses pay $5 a head for every horse stolen, $3 to 

the Cattlemen’s Association, and $2 to Texas A&M Extension Service, 

for the purpose of determining stolen horses. In a newspaper article in 

San Antonio just 2 years ago they were talking about it and they said we 

haven’t found any stolen horses yet. And I think Mr. Koehler, in his 

testimony for Beltex today will indicate they have not found any stolen 

horses. 

 I know my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I will just make one 

additional comment. I found a case in Kentucky, when one of my 

constituents who filed a lawsuit and received a judgment of $126,000 

against a couple that obtained his horses by misrepresentation, sold them 

to killer buyers for Beltex, and took the horse to Beltex for slaughter. It 

is in the court records. We know that many horses being stolen are 

ending up being slaughter and that is one of the reasons we want to pass 

this legislation. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Pitts just came in. 

Would you like to have an--he will waive. With that, we will move to 

our panel, our distinguished members, and at this point, Mr. Sweeney, 

we are going to call on you first and we welcome you for your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENTS OF THE HON. JOHN E. SWEENEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK, AND THE HON. BOB GOODLATTE, 

CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 
20

MR. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Schakowsky. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here, and let me 

begin by saying that I am here obviously in support of my legislation, 

H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, and I ask that 

my full statement be submitted into the record. 

 MR. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered. 

 MR. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, this has been a long day in coming. I 

first introduced legislation back in 2003 and we have faced obstruction, 

obfuscation, and delay. What I am struck by, the testimony of your great 

committee, is how thoroughly informed the members are. At least they 

focused on it. This issue is extremely important to me as a representative 

of upstate New York, and more specifically Saratoga Springs, because 

Saratoga Springs is the home of the Saratoga Racetrack, the oldest 

thoroughbred racetrack in America, and it is one of the larger horse farm 

communities in the Nation. In fact, tomorrow the racetrack opens up its 

2006 season, so this is going to be a very timely hearing. 

 We Americans, as many have said, hold the horse in very high 

regard for good reason. This is why many in our country find it shocking 

when they hear each year that some 90,000 horses are slaughtered in the 

country, then shipped overseas to Europe and Asia, where they are 

served in restaurants as delicacies. The reason I sit before you today is to 

advocate for my legislation, which effectively bans the slaughter of 

horses in the United States for human consumption. In 2002, a horse 

named Ferdinand, the 1986 Kentucky Derby winner, was slaughtered 

and served as a meal overseas. In fact, he was advertised as, eat an 

American champion. Americans were shocked to hear that such a thing 

could ever occur to an animal that was so loved and respected. It was 

Ferdinand’s death that brought this issue to the forefront, and as I said, 

since 2003, I have been the author of this legislation. 

 There have also been many attempts to curb this practice at the State 

level as well. Texas, as my good friend, Mr. Whitfield, and partner in 

this effort noted, has had a law prohibiting the sale of horse meat for 

human consumption on its books since 1949, yet slaughter facilities 

operating in Texas in violation of State law continue. This demonstrates 

the need and the rationale for Federal legislation. Also a 1998 ballot 

proposition to ban horse slaughter in California passed with 60 percent of 

the vote. Various other States have pending legislation, including 

Illinois, Delaware, and my home State of New York. We have made 

substantial strides in curbing horse slaughter for human consumption 

recently; however, our goal remains very far from the finish line. 

 Last year I offered an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations 

bill to effectively pass a 1-year ban on horse slaughter. This amendment 

passed by a wide margin, 269 to 158. However, due to a maneuver by 
21

the USDA circumventing congressional intent, horse slaughter continues. 

And I would just point out to my good friend, Mr. Murphy, that it wasn’t 

until that maneuver that horses were classified as livestock. And most of 

the regulations that are on the books are not adhered to. My legislation 

amends the Horse Protection Act of 1970 to prohibit the shipping, 

transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, 

selling, or donation of horses and other equines for slaughter for human 

consumption. Basically, this makes it impossible for an individual to 

slaughter a horse in the United States, but also prohibits an individual to 

transport a horse to Canada or Mexico for the purpose of slaughter. H.R. 

503 differs significantly from prior legislation aimed at banning horse 

slaughter, in that it does not actually ban the act of slaughter. Allow me 

to explain why I chose to go this route. 

 My legislation in the 108th Congress specifically banned the act of 

slaughter of horses for human consumption. That legislation sat out on 

the Committee on Agriculture. Therefore, I rewrote this legislation for 

referral to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Currently, we have 

202 co-sponsors. Not only do a vast majority of the Members of 

Congress support my efforts, but a majority of Americans do as well. 

Recently public opinion polls have clearly demonstrated this. Surveys 

conducted in Texas, Kentucky, and Virginia indicate that nearly 75 

percent of voters oppose horse slaughter. Over 481 industry and horse 

organizations support this legislation. Even the mayor of Kaufman, 

Texas, home to one of the slaughter facilities, supports the bill. Why is 

this? The fact remains that we Americans hold horses to a higher 

standard. Horses are known personally. Everyone knows Mr. Ed, 

Secretariat, Silver, and I suggest that that is not the case with animals 

like cows and chickens. Would we ever think of slaughtering and 

serving a bald eagle in this country? Horses are American icons and 

deserve to be treated as such. Unlike cows and pigs, horses are not 

raised for food but for pleasure, work, and recreation. If another country 

chooses to raise horses for food, then so be it; however, they should 

slaughter their own horses, not American horses. 

 Horse meat is neither consumed in the United States nor is there a 

demand here. According to the USDA, more than 90,000 U.S. horses 

were slaughtered in 2005 for human consumption and exported to 

Europe and Asia. Three slaughter plants exist in the United States today, 

all foreign-owned. While they operate in the United States and slaughter 

American horses, both the meat and money go overseas. There are two 

slaughter plants located in Texas and one in Illinois. Opposition to my 

legislation makes false claims that H.R. 503 would result in 

overpopulation of horses and increase abuse and neglect. This is simply 

untrue. The horse population is estimated at 9 million. Each year 
22

roughly 900,000 horses die of various causes. Of those 900,000 horses 

that die, about 90,000, 1 percent, are actually slaughtered. Surely this 

relatively small percentage of horses will be absorbed into the 

community. 

 Also, since California banned horse slaughter in 1998, there has been 

no documented rise in abuse or neglect, and a reduction in the theft of 

horses. There are many outlets for these remaining horses, humane 

euthanasia, adoption, or donation to one of the hundreds of rescue 

facilities in the United States. A veterinarian, for the nominal cost of 

$225, can humanely euthanize a horse. Another myth is that slaughter of 

horses is the same as humane euthanasia. Nothing could be further from 

the truth. Slaughter is not euthanasia and this is a key distinction. 

Euthanasia is administered by a licensed veterinarian via lethal injection. 

Slaughter is administered by an unskilled laborer via a captive bold 

pistol, which many times is not administered properly. Sometimes 

horses are still alive and semiconscious when they are processed into 

meat. 

 In conclusion, I am not here seeking to ban the slaughter of cows, 

pigs, or chickens. These animals are raised in the United States for food 

and do not share the cultural and historical prominence that the horse 

does. Our horses deserve better, the American people deserve better. 

The practice of horse slaughter is a contradiction to our culture, history, 

and economy. The time has come to end it. Again, I really thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify before the panel, and for the 

first opportunity that we have had to really make this case, and I yield 

back. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. John E. Sweeney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN E. SWEENEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, members of the Subcommittee, 

distinguished guests, let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to testify in 

support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Protection Act. 

This is an issue that is extremely important to me, and I sincerely appreciate your 

willingness, and Chairman Barton’s willingness, to consider this issue before your 

committee. As the representative of Saratoga Springs, New York, which is known for its 

beautiful Victorian homes, rich history, and most of all, horses. This issue resonates 

deeply in my Congressional District. Saratoga Springs is home to the Saratoga 

Racetrack, the oldest thoroughbred racetrack in the nation. 

Saratoga prides itself on horses. For 6 magical weeks each summer, people come in 

droves from all over the country – and the world – to watch these majestic and graceful 

animals barrel down the stretch. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say, that the Saratoga 

Racetrack opens its gates tomorrow for the 2006 season. That is why it is incredibly 

timely I sit before your committee this afternoon. 

Saratoga Springs is one example of why the horse plays such a prominent role in 

American culture, business, and history. We watch in awe when a horse “wins by a 
23

nose,” we find it therapeutic to sit atop a horse as it trots through a field, and throughout 

history, we have relied on these able-bodies creatures to plow our fields and explore our 

continent. We as Americans, hold the horse in a very high regard – for good reason. 

This is why many in our country find it shocking to hear that each year, 90,000 horses are 

slaughtered in the country, then shipped overseas to Europe and Asia, where they are 

served in restaurants as a delicacy. 

The reason I sit before you today is to advocate for my legislation – H.R. 503, the 

American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This legislation effectively bans the slaughter 

of horses in the United States for human consumption. Before I discuss this bill in 

greater detail, I would appreciate the opportunity to provide a brief historical background 

on the issue of horse slaughter, to demonstrate why this legislation is necessary. 

In 2002, a horse named Ferdinand, who won the 1986 Kentucky Derby, the most 

prestigious horse race in the world, was slaughtered and served as a meal somewhere in 

Europe of Asia. This horse, who also was the winner of the 1987 Horse of the Year title 

and the 1987 Breeder’s Cut Classic, certainly did not deserve such a fate. Like me, 

Americans were shocked to hear that such a thing could ever occur to an animal that was 

so loved and respected. Unfortunately the cruel truth is that it happens 90,000 times over 

each year. It was Ferdinand’s death that brought this issue to the forefront. 

Since 2001, the United States Congress has had the opportunity to act on legislation 

to end this horrible act through bill introduced by various members. Since the 108th

Congress, I have been the champion of this legislation and have been actively engaged in 

banning this despicable foreign trade in the United States. Both bills, H.R. 857, the bill I 

introduced in the 108th Congress and H.R. 503, my effort in the 109th Congress, have 

received overwhelming, bi-partisan support by members of the House, Senate, the Horse 

Industry and the citizens of the United States. 

There have also been many attempts to curb this practice at the state and local level 

as well. Many states across the country have worked to pass legislation to outlaw this 

practice. Texas has had a law prohibiting the sale of horsemeat for human consumption 

on its books since 1949. 

In 1998, California passed a comprehensive and popular law by ballot initiative that 

prohibited horse slaughter as well as the sale and transport of horses to slaughter. The 

law is working, and working well. There has been no rise in abuse and neglect cases in 

the state since the law came into effect, as some had warned would occur. Instead, 

according to the California Bureau of Livestock Identification, the state has seen a 34% 

decrease in horse theft since the law came into effect. 

There is also legislation pending in the Illinois, New York and Delaware legislature 

that bans horse slaughter or severely impedes the ability of individuals to slaughter horses 

for human consumption. 

We have made substantial strides in curbing horse slaughter recently, yet we remain 

very far from the finish line. Last year, I offered an amendment to the FY06 Agriculture 

Appropriations bill, which prohibited taxpayer dollars from inspecting horses intended 

for slaughter. Without these inspections, it would impossible to slaughter horses in, or 

transport horses to slaughter outside, the US, thereby providing a temporary ban on horse 

slaughter. I offered this as a short-term solution to the problem as I continued to push my 

authorizing legislation, H.R. 503. My amendment passed by an overwhelming majority 
24

vote of 269-158 1. Similarly, a companion amendment in the Senate, offered by Sen. 

Ensign of Nevada, passed by a vote of 69-28 2

. 

However, despite passage in both chambers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) circumvented clear congressional intent of the bill amendment and offering 

slaughter plants a fee-for-service option, allowing slaughter houses to pay for inspections. 

The slaughter plants themselves, not USDA would actually pay for the inspection 

process. This permitted the practice of slaughter to continue. Horse advocacy groups 

filed suit against the USDA to prevent the fee-for-service inspection option, yet the DC 

Superior Court ruled in favor of the USDA and slaughter plants, allowing the option to 

continue. 

Furthermore, there was additional language added in the FY06 Agriculture 

Appropriations Conference Report that impedes me from effectively offering this 

amendment again. This was a technical change of the definition of animals under the 

jurisdiction of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Horses were grouped into a new animal 

category - “amenable” species classification, precluding us from ever offering a similar 

amendment to future appropriations bill.3

 

In addition to amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bill, Congressman 

Rahall, Congressman Whitfield, and I also offered an amendment to FY06 & 07 Interior 

Appropriations banning the sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses. This 

prevented the Bureau of Land Management from selling horses for slaughter after a 

provision that was snuck into the FY05 Omnibus Appropriations bill, which allowed wild 

horses to be slaughtered for human consumption overseas. While these amendments 

strictly dealt with wild horses, unlike the Agriculture amendment which dealt with all 

horses, the amendments passed the House in FY06 with overwhelming support - 249 – 

159 and agreed to by voice-vote in FY07. Unfortunately this provision was not included 

in the FY06 Interior Appropriations Conference Report, and I am saddened to say that it 

is unlikely it will be included in the FY07 Conference Report as well. 

The lopsided victories of these amendments demonstrate the need for my legislation 

to be considered before the full House of Representatives. My legislation amends the 

Horse Protection Act of 1970 to prohibit the “shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, 

receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines for 

Slaughter for human consumption.” Basically, this makes it impossible for an individual 

to slaughter a horse in the United States, but also for an individual to transport a horse to 

Canada or Mexico for the purpose of slaughter. The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the 

slaughter of horses for human food. 

H.R. 503 also permits the USDA to detain, for examination and evidence, any horse 

for which it has probable cause that the animal will be slaughtered for food. Violators 

would be subject to specified criminal and civil penalties ($5000) and prison terms (2 

years) per violation.4

 

H.R. 503 differs significantly from prior legislation aimed at banning horse 

slaughter, in that it does not actually ban the act of slaughter. Allow me to explain why I 

chose to go this route. My legislation in the 108th Congress, H.R. 857, specifically 

banned the act of slaughter of horses for human consumption. That legislation, sat in the 

 

1

 United States. Cong. House. 109th Congress, 1st Session. Roll Call Vote 233. H.AMDT. 236 to 

H.R. 2744 - Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2006 [Amdt. introduced in the U.S. House; 8 June 2005]. 

2

 United States. Cong. Senate. 109th Congress, 1st Session. Roll Call Vote 237. S.AMDT. 1753 to 

H.R. 2744 - Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2006 [Amdt. introduced in the U.S. House; 9 September 2005]. 3

 Section 798. Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. no. 109-97. (2005). 

4

 Section 6. Horse Protection Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1821 1831 
25

Committee on Agriculture, as did other similar bills, introduced by Rep. Morella and 

Reynolds, with absolutely no consideration. 

Therefore, I rewrote my legislation as an amendment to the Horse Protection Act of 

1970, a bill that was considered under the sole jurisdiction of the House Interstate and 

Foreign Commerce Committee, which has since been consolidated into the current 

Energy and Commerce Committee. The Horse Protection Act prohibited the act of 

“soring,” or branding of the feet, horses or transporting sore horses. Since H.R. 503 

prohibits the “shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, 

purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human 

consumption,” this bill effectively deals with issues pertaining to commerce, thus 

justifying its referral to this committee. 

The time has come for this legislation to be considered. Not only do a vast majority 

of Members of Congress support my efforts, but a majority of Americans do as well. 

Recent public opinion polls have clearly demonstrated this. Surveys conducted in Texas, 

Kentucky and Virginia indicated that, 72% of Texas voters5

, 82% of voters in Kentucky6, 

and 74% of Virginia voters7

 oppose horse slaughter for human consumption. In 

California, the 1998 ballot initiative (Proposition 6) banning horse slaughter for human 

consumption was passed with an overwhelming 60% of the vote. Over 481 reputable 

horse organizations, representing thousands of industry professionals, owners and riders, 

horse farms, state organizations and celebrities are on record in support of H.R. 503. 

The fact remains that to Americans, the horse is held to a different standard. Horses 

are known personally. Everyone knows who Mr. Ed, Secretariat and Silver are. I dare 

anyone to name a list of famous cattle or chickens. They are American icons that deserve 

to be treated as such. Would we ever think of slaughtering and serving a bald eagle in 

this country? The same should be true of the horse. Horses and other equines play a vital 

role in the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and 

compassion. 

Furthermore, horses and other equines are domestic animals that are used primarily 

for recreation, pleasure, and sport. Unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses 

and other equines are not raised for the purpose of being slaughtered for human 

consumption. If another country, France or Japan, chooses to raise horses for food, then 

so be it. That is their choice as a sovereign nation to do so. However, they should not 

serve American horses, marketed as “eating an American champion,” as Ferdinand was. 

Horsemeat is not consumed nor is there a demand in the United States. According to the 

USDA, more than 90,000 U.S. horses were slaughtered in 2005 for human consumption, 

virtually all for export, to the largest markets of horsemeat, France, Belgium, 

Switzerland, Italy, Japan, and Mexico. The United States exported about 18,000 tons of 

horsemeat valued at $61 million in 2005. 

Despite a 50% percent increase since 2002, resulting from the reopening of a 

slaughter facility in Illinois, slaughter remains lower than it was over 15 year ago. 

According to the USDA, 342,877 horses were slaughtered in 1989, compared to 91,757 

in 2005. 8 Overall more than 4 million American horses have been brutally slaughtered 

since 1980. However, the US does not even rank within the top 5 countries, which 

slaughter horses. Asia, Europe and Mexico out-slaughter the US by over 700-900% 

more. 

 

5

 Survey conducted on May 4-6, 2003 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for Blue Horse 

Charities. 

6

 Survey conducted by Voter/Consumer Research on behalf of the National Horse Protection 

Coalition in Oct. ’05 

7

 Survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on behalf of the National Horse Protection 

Coalition. 

8

 U.S. Horse Slaughter Statistics. USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. Online. 

<http://www.saplonline.org/horses_stats.htm> 
26

Only 3 slaughter-plants remain in the US today, all foreign owned. While they 

operate the United States and slaughter American horses, both the meat and the money go 

overseas. There are two slaughter plants located in Texas – Dallas Crown in Kaufman 

and Beltex Corporation in Fort Worth. These plants in Texas operate in clear violation of 

Texas state law. However since these horses are transported from and to destinations 

outside of Texas, the slaughter facilities claim they this state law is a violation of the 

Interstate Commerce Clause. This demonstrates the need for my federal legislation. 

The third plant, Cavel International, is located in DeKalb, Illinois. Some have 

expressed concerns that after passage of H.R. 503, these facilities would be forced to shut 

down, thus eliminating jobs. This is simply not true. All three plants have the capacity to 

continue to operate by processing other animals, should H.R. 503 pass. 

Furthermore, it is widely suspected that many of the laborers in these facilities are 

undocumented illegal immigrants. I suggest to my colleagues that these individuals 

should not even be employed in the country to begin with. Finally, if my legislation 

actually had negative effects on local economies, then the local municipalities would 

certainly actively oppose H.R. 503. However, the fact remains that these host 

communities of these slaughter facilities do not want them in their backyards. In March 

of 2006, the Kaufman Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to close Dallas Crown 

due to violations of zoning ordinances and pollution (smell and discharge to city’s sewer 

system) to the local environment. The plant filed a counter suit, and a final ruling is 

expected at the end of this month. 

According to a court affidavit by Paula Bacon, Mayor of Kaufman, TX, “Dallas 

Crown began operating in Kaufman in the early 1980’s and has caused massive economic 

and environmental problems since its inception. It has also violated, and is currently in 

violation of, a multitude of local laws pertaining to waste management, air and water 

quality, and other environmental concerns...29 citations for wastewater violations have 

been issues to Dallas Crown, each carrying with them a potential fine of $2,000.”9

The claim that H.R. 503 would hurt local economies is just one of the many false 

claims made by the opposition to my legislation. They claim that this legislation would 

result in an overpopulation of horses, which would actually lead to an increase of horse 

abuse and death. This is simply untrue. The horse population is estimated at 9 million. 

Each year, roughly 900,000 horses die of various causes. Of those 900,000 horses that 

die, about 90,000 (or only 1% of the horse population) are actually slaughtered. Surely 

this relatively small percentage of horses can be easily absorbed into the community. 

Should H.R. 503 be signed into law, a number of resources and opportunities exist 

for horses that are no longer bound for slaughter. Should an owner no longer desire to 

keep the horse, it can be humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian for a nominal 

fee of approximately $225. Horses that are not humanely euthanized can continue to be 

kept by their owners, sold to a new owner, or can be placed in one of the hundreds of 

horse sanctuaries and rescue facilities springing up across the country. Education within 

the horse community about these humane alternatives to slaughter is already occurring, 

and will continue to do so. 

According to the American Horse Defense Fund, 540 rescue facilities, and 34 

Equine Sanctuaries operate around the country, with additional facilities being 

established. These equine rescue organizations will take horses that are unwanted and 

find them homes. The Association of Sanctuaries and the American Sanctuaries 

Association provide accreditation programs, a code of ethics and guidelines for the 

operation of sanctuaries and rescue organizations. Horse rescue groups must also provide 

 

9

 Declaration of Paula Bacon. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9. Civ. No. 02-0265 (CKK). The Humane Society 

of the United States, et al. vs. Mike Johanns et al. 
27

for the welfare of horses in their custody in compliance with state and local animal 

welfare laws.10

Another myth disseminated by the pro-slaughter entities is that slaughter of horses is 

the same has humane euthanasia. Nothing could be further from the truth. Slaughter is 

not euthanasia. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association’s 2000 

Report on the Panel of Euthanasia, euthanasia, is the act of inducing humane death in an 

animal, ensuring that if an animal’s life has to be taken, it is done with the highest degree 

of respect, and with an emphasis on making the death as painless and distress free as 

possible.11

Euthanasia is administered properly, according to the AVMA and the National 

Horse Protection Coalition, primarily by chemical injection and in some emergency 

situations, gunshots.12 Veterinary euthanasia averages from $50 to $225 per horse.13 

Slaughter is conducted via a captive bolt pistol, which is a metal rod shot into the horse's 

brain. Many times in slaughterhouses, this administered by an untrained laborer, which 

results in unnecessary suffering of the horse and even some horses to remain alive and 

semi-conscious as they are being processed. 

Additionally, horses suffer horribly on the way to slaughter. The Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS), a division of USDA, stipulates and requires that 

humane transport of horses to slaughter must include food, water, and rest be provided to 

each animal prior to shipment to the slaughter house. 14 However these regulations only 

adhere to treatment prior to transport, thereby allowing horses to be transported long 

distances often in deplorable conditions, in poorly equipped trucks and trailers, where 

they are exposed to bad weather and often inadequate rest, food, and water. 

Since horses are not raised for slaughter in the US, they are crammed together and 

driven to slaughter in double-decker trucks designed for cattle and pigs. The truck 

ceilings are so low that the horses are unable to hold their heads in a normal, balanced 

position. In September 2004, a double-deck livestock trailer traveling from Minnesota to 

Kentucky, carrying 50 horses on the way to slaughter overturned. 21 horses were killed, 

and many sustained injuries, two of which were severe. 

 The AVMA and APHIS regulations for the transport of horses clearly state that 

horses by nature need to be separated.15 During transport stallions, mares, and foals are 

unnaturally forced together, making fighting and injury common. This can lead to 

serious injury, or even death, en route to slaughter. 

 In conclusion, I testify before you not looking to attack other industries with thriving 

markets within the United States. We are not out to ban the slaughter of cows, pigs, or 

chickens. These animals are raised in the United States for food and do not share the 

cultural and historical prominence that the horse does. Plain and simple, our horses 

deserve better. This is an industry that exists only outside the borders of the United 

States, where horsemeat is consumed only as a delicacy. The practice of horse slaughter 

is a contradiction to our culture, history and economy. The time has come to end it. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the panel and urge support for this 

important legislation. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. Mr. Goodlatte. 

 

10 Ibid. 

11 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. JAVMA, Vol. 218, No. 5, March 1, 2001. 

12 Ibid.

13 American Horse Defense Fund. Alternatives to Auction and Slaughter: A guide for Equine 

Owners. 2005 14 USDA, Animal and Inspection Service Publication. “Take Care of Our Horses – Commercial 

Transportation of Equines to Slaughter.” 

15 Ibid. 
28

MR. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It is a 

pleasure to be here with you to discuss horse slaughter. I have heard the 

opening statements of the members of the committee and I very much 

respect those statements, and I can tell you that, while I very much agree 

with the sentiments expressed by a minority here, in the Agriculture 

Committee, it is exactly the opposite. Every member of the committee 

represents rural America and the conclusion is overwhelmingly in the 

opposite direction and I would like to tell you why. 

 Ms. Schakowsky, I very much have seen and understand the 

emotions and the enthusiasm that has been expressed. I have certainly 

seen that myself. Some would say that I have been the victim of some of 

that enthusiasm, but nonetheless, I understand that. That is a part of the 

American way, that is a part of this process. The other part of this 

process is taking into account the facts that are before us. It has been 

mentioned here that there are a lot of consequences of what will become 

of horses if they do not go to slaughter and that is what I am here to talk 

about, not what happens to a horse after it goes through that process. 

 So let us look at the facts. More than 60 reputable horse 

organizations, animal health organizations, and agricultural organizations 

have joined together to oppose this legislation, and they represent some 

of the most respected people who own and care for horses in the United 

States. The American Quarter Horse Association, the largest association 

of horse owners in the world, strongly opposes this legislation. The 

American Paint Horse Association, the second largest association of 

horse owners, opposes this legislation. Every State horse council in the 

United States that has taken a position on this has opposed this 

legislation. Ten States represented on this subcommittee have State 

horse councils that oppose this legislation: New York State, Illinois, 

Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Texas, Colorado, Florida, 

and Wisconsin. The horse councils, the association of all the different 

breeds of horses in the State, have come together and voted to oppose 

this legislation. If you haven’t heard your State’s name called, that is 

because your State horse council either doesn’t exist or has not taken a 

position on the issue. To my knowledge, no State horse council has 

endorsed this legislation. 

 H.R. 503 is also opposed by those who see to the health of horses, 

very respected organizations like the American Veterinary Medical 

Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the 

horse doctors. More than 7,000 members, the people who provide health 

care for our horses, are concerned about the implications of this 

legislation. They, as I, are concerned that if enacted, the bill would 

negatively impact the health and welfare of horses across the country and 

would significantly increase the numbers and problem of unwanted 
29

horses in the United States. Other organizations opposed to this 

legislation include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Equine 

Nutrition and Physiology Society, the Animal Welfare Council, the 

National Horse Show Commission, the National Cattlemen’s Beef 

Association, and many, many others. 

 As a public policy matter, this issue should be about what is the best 

approach for the humane treatment of horses. Like most of Americans, I 

support the humane treatment of all animals, including those in our 

Nation’s farms and stockyards, in research facilities, in processing plants, 

exhibitions, and in our homes. Further, I believe that inhumane 

treatment of animals should not be tolerated. It is our responsibility to be 

good stewards of the land and the animals under our charge. Having said 

that, what do we do to solve the problem of unwanted horses in 

America? What are the rights of individuals to decide what to do with 

their animals? What are the implications for other livestock sectors if we 

ban humane slaughter for one species? Why would the Federal 

government put a legitimate business, in effect, thousands of people out 

of work? These are just a few of the unresolved public policy 

implications of this legislation. 

 Organizations that represent literally millions of horse owners in this 

country and elsewhere around the world oppose this legislation because 

of their concern, not about whether somebody else is eating horse meat, 

but whether hundreds of thousands of horses will be treated humanely if 

we make this dramatic change. No other Nation in the world has taken 

that step. What will happen to the approximately 65,000 to 95,000 

horses per year that are currently processed in the U.S. horse slaughter 

plants, as well as the estimated more than 25,000 that are sent to Canada 

and Mexico for slaughter, if humane euthanasia in a horse processing 

facility is no longer an option? Right now the only federally regulated 

transportation and euthanasia of horses are the programs that this bill 

seeks to abolish. Ironically, government supervision of humane 

treatment of horses would be the first casualty of H.R. 503. 

 Unlike many of the very wealthy horse owners pushing this 

legislation, many owners are no longer able to provide financial or 

physical humane care for their horses. Many horses are infirm, have 

behavioral problems, or are dangerous. There are many reasons why a 

horse becomes unwanted. There are not enough rescue retirement 

facilities available to take care of the current numbers of unwanted 

horses. This bill would drastically and exponentially increase the 

numbers of unwanted horses, leaving many to abandonment, neglect, or 

starvation. Horse owners should continue to have the option to choose 

slaughter for equines they no longer can or desire to appropriately tend. 
30

 The proponents of H.R. 503 don’t seem to care about the problems 

passage of their legislation would create. If their true purpose of this 

legislation was to provide for humane treatment of horses, then they 

would address the issue of the fate of the thousands of animals this 

would affect, accumulating exponentially each year. H.R. 503 focuses 

on what happens after an animal is dead rather than when it is alive. It 

does not matter to the horse; it is dead. The proponents of the legislation 

have stated publicly they do not care if unwanted horses are euthanized. 

They just care about the disposition of the remains of the unwanted 

horse. My concern, as well as the concern of all of the horse lovers who 

oppose this bill, is, what do we do with these horses when they are alive? 

How are they properly and humanely cared for? What will happen to the 

thousands of horses that are shipped to slaughter plants in other 

countries? Make no mistake about it. This legislation, while intending 

to prohibit export of horses to other countries, has no mechanism to 

cause this to happen. If the bill goes to stop export of horses for 

slaughter, its authors definitely need to provide some way to make that 

happen, or we will simply be exporting the issue outside the humane 

regulation of our government. 

 These are just a very few of the repercussions that will occur as a 

result of the passage of this legislation. Time limits today do not allow 

me to fully outline all of my concerns, but let me list a few more 

questions that need to be answered. Besides what happens to the 

hundreds of thousands of horses this legislation would affect, what 

happens to the people who work at these businesses? How do States and 

counties that have a statutory obligation to deal with unwanted animals 

cope with the abandoned horses that will be left on their doorstep as a 

result of this bill? Since the bill provides no mechanism to ensure horses 

are not abandoned by owners, who will deal with the abandoned, 

starving horses whose owners lack the ability to care for them? The 

horse sanctuaries and retirement facilities are already inadequate in 

numbers and ability to take care of the existing unwanted horses that are 

sent to them. Even the proponents of H.R. 503 have been quoted as 

saying, these types of facilities are currently inadequate. Of the horses 

that go to sanctuaries, who is going to ensure that there is enough space, 

money, and expertise to properly care for hundreds of thousands of 

animals that can easily live to 30 years of age? Who is going to pay for 

that? Who is going to regulate them? 

 Since the proponents say that they would prefer that unwanted horses 

are euthanized instead of being processed into a useful product, what 

about the disposal of the potentially tens of thousands of extra carcasses 

per year? Every State and even many counties have different laws 

relating to the proper disposal of carcasses. Who will pay for that? All 
31

States regulate the disposal of animal carcasses. Local governments 

already grapple with the problem of unwanted cats and dogs and their 

disposal. Horses are on average 50 times larger animals. There will be 

tremendous difficulty for many local governments to properly dispose of 

carcasses of euthanized horses. It will be expensive and will create 

environmental and wildlife concerns, which leads me to the overarching 

question: why is Congress rushing to enact legislation that causes many 

problems and solves none, especially when there is no consensus in the 

livestock community. Even if the goal of this legislation was desirable, 

and I do not accept the premise, this is not a bill that will improve the 

treatment of horses. Too little has been done to deal with the 

consequences of destroying a legitimate industry by government fiat. If 

anything, H.R. 503 in its current form will lead to more suffering for the 

horses it purports to help. 

 This draconian legislation will have far reaching and significant 

detrimental effects for horses, horse owners, and the larger agriculture 

sector. As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, it is my 

responsibility and privilege to thoroughly review and explore all 

legislation and Federal policies that affect the agriculture community. 

This legislation is woefully inadequate, emotionally misguided, and fails 

to serve the best interests of the American horse and horse owner, despite 

what the proponents would have you believe. That is why every major 

horse owner organization in the country that has taken a stand on the 

issue has taken a strong stand against H.R. 503. 

 Again, I thank you for allowing me testify today. I thank the 

proponents of this legislation for their sincerity, but I strongly disagree 

with the merits of their legislation. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Bob Goodlatte follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB GOODLATTE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON 

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I welcome the 

opportunity to bring some sense to the discussion about banning horse owners from 

making decisions for themselves. This is an important topic, not only to horse owners and 

tax payers. It also has broader and far-reaching implications for the entire animal 

agricultural community. The proponents of H.R.503 are not engaged in a public policy 

discussion, they are engaged in a public relations campaign. They have bumper stickers 

and they have sound bites. They do not have the facts. As Chairman of the House 

Agriculture Committee I have a duty and a responsibility to be guided by sound fact and 

reason. You will note that the other witnesses testifying in opposition to H.R.503 are all 

experts in their fields, have significant experience, and have based their testimony on the 

facts. 

So let’s look at the facts. More than 60 reputable horse organizations, animal health 

organizations, and agricultural organizations have joined together to oppose this 

legislation, and they represent some of the most respected people who own and care for 

horses in the United States. 
32

The American Quarter Horse Association, the largest association of horse owners in 

the world, strongly opposes this legislation. The American Paint Horse Association, the 

second largest association of horse owners, opposes this legislation. More than a dozen 

State horse councils oppose this legislation, including the Virginia Horse Council. Ten 

states represented on this subcommittee have State horse councils that oppose this 

legislation: New York State, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Texas, 

Colorado, Florida and Wisconsin. 

H.R.503 is also opposed by those who see to the health of our horses, very respected 

organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American 

Association of Equine Practitioners. More than 7,000 veterinarians, the people who 

provide health care for our nation’s horses, are concerned about the implications of this 

legislation. They, as I, are concerned that if enacted, the bill would negatively impact the 

health and welfare of horses across the country and would significantly increase the 

numbers, and problem of, unwanted horses in the U.S. 

Other organizations opposed to this legislation include the American Farm Bureau 

Federation, the Equine Nutrition and Physiology Society, the Animal Welfare Council, 

the National Horse Show Commission, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and 

many, many others.

As a public policy matter this issue should be about what is the best approach for the 

humane treatment of horses. Like most Americans, I support the humane treatment of all 

animals, including those on our nation’s farms and stockyards, in research facilities, 

processing plants, exhibitions, and in our homes. Further, I believe that inhumane 

treatment of animals should not be tolerated. It is our responsibility to be good stewards 

of the land and the animals under our charge. 

Having said that, what do we do to solve the problem of unwanted horses in 

America? What are the rights of individuals to decide what to do with their animals? 

What are the implications for other livestock sectors if we ban humane slaughter for one 

species? Why would the Federal government put a legitimate business and in effect 

thousands of people out of work? These are just a few of the unresolved public policy 

implications of this legislation. 

Organizations that represent literally millions of horse owners in this country and 

elsewhere around the world oppose this legislation because of their concern, not about 

whether somebody else is eating horsemeat, but whether hundreds of thousands of horses 

will be treated humanely if we make this dramatic change. What will happen to the 

approximately 65,000-95,000 horses per year that currently are processed in the U.S. 

horse slaughter plants, as well as the estimated more than 25,000 that are sent to Canada 

and Mexico for slaughter, if humane euthanasia in a horse processing facility is no longer 

an option? Right now the only Federally regulated transportation and euthanasia of horses 

are the programs that this bill seeks to abolish. Ironically, government supervision of 

humane treatment of horses would be the first casualty of H.R.503. 

Unlike many of the very wealthy horse owners pushing this legislation, many 

owners are no longer able to provide financial or physical humane care for their horses. 

Many horses are infirm, have behavioral problems, or are dangerous. There are many 

reasons why a horse becomes unwanted. There are not nearly enough rescue/retirement 

facilities available to take care of the current numbers of unwanted horses. This bill 

would drastically and exponentially increase the numbers of unwanted horses, leaving 

many to abandonment, neglect, or starvation. Horse owners should continue to have the 

option to choose slaughter for equine they no longer can or desire to appropriately tend. 

The proponents of H.R.503 don’t seem to care about the problems passage of their 

legislation would create. If their true purpose of this legislation was to provide for 

humane treatment of horses, then they would address the issue of the fate of the thousands 

of animals this would effect, accumulating exponentially each year. 
33

H.R.503 focuses on what happens after an animal is dead rather than when it is alive. 

It does not matter to the horse – it is dead. The proponents of the legislation have stated 

publicly that they do not care if unwanted horses are euthanized, they just care about the 

disposition of the remains of the unwanted horse. My concern, as well as the concern of 

all of the horse lovers who oppose this bill, is what do we do with these horses when they 

are alive? How are they properly and humanely cared for? 

What will happen to the thousands of horses that are shipped to slaughter plants in 

other countries? Make no mistake about it – this legislation, while intending to prohibit 

export of U.S. horses to other countries, has no mechanism to cause this to happen. If the 

bill’s goal is to stop export of horses for slaughter, its authors definitely need to provide 

some way to make that happen, or we will simply be exporting the issue outside the 

humane regulation of our government. 

These are just a very few of the repercussions that will occur as a result of the 

passage of this legislation. Time limits today do not allow me to fully outline all of my 

concerns but let me list a few more as questions that need to be answered. Besides what 

happens to the hundreds of thousands of horses this legislation would effect, what 

happens to the people who work at these businesses? How do states and counties that 

have a statutory obligation to deal with unwanted animals cope with the abandoned 

horses that will be left on their doorstep as a result of this bill? Since the bill provides no 

mechanism to ensure horses are not abandoned by owners, who will deal with the 

abandoned, starving horses whose owners lack the ability to care for them? 

The horse sanctuaries and retirement facilities are already inadequate in numbers and 

ability to take care of the existing unwanted horses that are sent to them. Even the 

proponents of H.R.503 have been quoted as saying these types of facilities are currently 

inadequate. Of the horses that go to sanctuaries, who is going to ensure that there is 

enough space, money, and expertise to properly care for hundreds of thousands of 

animals that can easily live to 30 years of age? Who is going to pay for that? Who is 

going to regulate them? 

Since the proponents say they would prefer that unwanted horses are euthanized 

instead of being processed into a useful product, what about disposal of the potentially 

tens of thousands of extra carcasses per year? Every state and even many counties have 

different laws relating to the proper disposal of carcasses. Who will pay for that? All 

states regulate the disposal of animal carcasses. Local governments already grapple with 

the problem of unwanted dogs and cats and their disposal. Horses are on average fifty 

times larger animals. There will be tremendous difficulty for many local governments to 

properly dispose of carcasses of euthanized horses. It will be expensive and will create 

environmental and wildlife concerns. 

Which leads me to the overarching question: Why is Congress rushing to enact 

legislation that causes many problems and solves none, especially when there is no 

consensus in the livestock community? Even if the goal of this legislation was desirable, 

and I do not accept the premise, this is not a bill that will improve the treatment of horses. 

Too little has been done to deal with the consequences of destroying a legitimate industry 

by government fiat. If anything, H.R.503 in its current form will lead to more suffering 

for the horses it purports to help. 

This draconian legislation will have far-reaching and significant detrimental effects 

for both horses, horse owners and the larger agriculture sector. 

As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, it is my responsibility and 

privilege to thoroughly review and explore all legislation and Federal policies that affect 

the agriculture community. This legislation is woefully inadequate, emotionally 

misguided, and fails to serve the best interest of the American horse, and horse owner, 

despite what the proponents would have you to believe. That’s why every major horse 

owner organization in the country has taken a strong stand against H.R.503. Again, thank 
34

you for allowing me a chance to testify today and I have additional documents to submit 

for the record. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank my colleagues. As I mentioned earlier, I 

asked for a request that we go and take a temporary recess and move 

down to 2123, where we have people that are outside who would like to 

get in and then we will have a larger room. So if my colleagues will 

consider this, we are just going to vote and the committee will reconvene 

in 15 minutes. I would say to my colleagues that generally we don’t ask 

questions to you and we will call up the panel behind you, so that 

subcommittee will reconvene in 15 minutes, downstairs at 2123. This is 

just a temporary break so we get more room for everybody. 

 [Recess.] 

 MR. STEARNS. The subcommittee will reconvene, and I thank all of 

you for your patience. I think we are a lot more comfortable here, and 

particularly the witnesses. 

So with that, we will welcome the second panel: Mr. Boone Pickens, 

Chief Executive Officer of BP Capital; Dr. Bonnie V. Beaver, Doctor of 

Veterinary Medicine; Dr. Patricia Hogan, New Jersey Equine Clinic; 

Dr. Douglas Corey, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine; President-Elect of 

the American Association of Equine Practitioners; Mr. Russell Williams, 

Vice Chairman of the American Horse Council and Vice President of 

Hanover Shoe Farms; and Mr. Dick Koehler, Vice President of Beltex 

Corporation. 

We welcome all of you and we welcome your opening statements, 

roughly about 5 minutes. Mr. Pickens, welcome, and you are first. And 

I would just suggest you turn the mic on and make sure it is close enough 

to you so that we can hear you clearly. 

STATEMENTS OF BOONE PICKENS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, BP CAPITAL; BONNIE V. BEAVER, DVM, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF 

VETERINARY BEHAVIORISTS, TEXAS A&M 

UNIVERSITY; PATRICIA HOGAN, VMD, ACVS, NEW 

JERSEY EQUINE CLINIC; DOUGLAS G. COREY, DVM, 

PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF 

EQUINE PRACTITIONERS; RUSSELL WILLIAMS, VICE 

CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN HORSE COUNCIL; VICE 

PRESIDENT, HANOVER SHOE FARMS; AND DICK 

KOEHLER, VICE PRESIDENT, BELTEX CORPORATION 

MR. PICKENS. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to 

the members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

this afternoon. As some of you may know, I am a newcomer to this 
35

issue. But Texas has a dirty secret that should shame all of us. Although 

the slaughter of horses for human consumption is illegal in Texas, 

foreign-owned companies who process horse meat here are using Federal 

loopholes to continue killing horses. As a result, Texas provided a large 

part of the 39.5 million pounds of horse meat shipped to France, 

Belgium, and Japan in 2005. 

There are three horse slaughter plants in the United States, all foreign 

owned. Two of them are in North Texas: Dallas Crown in Kaufman, 

Texas, and Beltex in Fort Worth; and one is in Illinois. Every day, horse 

carcasses are shipped out of D/FW Airport bound for Paris, and this is a 

black eye on our State and Nation that demands action. 

According to the USDA, these three foreign-owned plants 

slaughtered nearly 100,000 American horses in 2005. Owners across the 

country regularly take their horses to legitimate sale barns, never 

suspecting that within 4 days their horse could end up on a plate in a 

high-end restaurant in France. The processors brag that they can take a 

horse from stable to table in 4 days. And despite the fact that none of the 

horse meat is sold or consumed in the United States, the horse 

slaughterhouses receive USDA oversight that costs millions of taxpayer 

dollars. 

All of our horse meat that is sold is consumed as delicacy in 

high-dollar markets and restaurants across Europe and Japan. To add 

insult to injury, these slaughterhouses use accounting loopholes to pay 

little or no taxes, shipping 100 percent of the horse meat and the profits 

to France and Belgium. 

You would be shocked at the horses sent to these slaughterhouses. 

According to the USDA, nearly all of the thoroughbreds, Arabians, 

quarterhorses, and wild mustangs arriving at these plants are “healthy, 

young horses that are in good-to-excellent condition,” and that is a quote. 

Because of the quick kill and export, these slaughter plants have become 

a convenient dumping ground for stolen horses. In fact, horse theft in 

California dropped 34 percent after that State instituted a ban on horse 

slaughter in 1998. 

I want to commend Congressman Whitfield for his leadership on the 

American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, a strongly bipartisan bill to 

end the slaughter of horses in the United States for human consumption. 

That bill has the support of 200 cosponsors, almost a majority in the 

House. The bill is championed by more than 100 organizers, including 

such industry groups as the National Thoroughbred Racing Association 

and Churchill Downs. 

The 109th congressional session can stop the unabated slaughter of 

horses that continues in our Nation. Every poll taken on this subject 

shows that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to horse slaughter. 
36

In a recent Texas poll, more than 70 percent opposed the slaughter of 

horses. 

The horse has a special place in American culture and history. It 

helped settle this country and provided inspiration for the horsepower 

that now powers the vehicles that make this Nation go. It is no surprise 

that when reports surfaced that 1986 Kentucky Derby winner, Ferdinand, 

ended up in a Japan slaughterhouse 3 years ago, that galvanized a 

movement to close the U.S. slaughter plants. Hopefully it will not take 

the slaughter of another Derby winner to put the spotlight on this 

important issue and shut these killing factories down once and for all. I 

strongly oppose horse slaughter. It is un-American. And I urge your 

vote in putting a stop to this. 

In conclusion, I did an op-ed piece today that was in the Dallas Morning 

News and have already received--this was this morning that it 

appeared--over 100 e-mails opposing horse slaughter. And I had 

two--only two--that were for the slaughter of horses. So of over 100 

e-mails, only two were for slaughter, over 100 were against slaughter. 

Thank you. 

I will file this with the committee today, but I would like to include 

with that that op-ed piece if I could. 

MR. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered. We will make it 

part of the record, Mr. Pickens. 

[The information follows:] 

T. Boone Pickens: Stop the Slaughter 

Congress should shut down killing factories and end the export of horsemeat 

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 

Texas has a dirty little secret that should shame all of us who live here. 

Although the slaughter of horses for human consumption is illegal in Texas, foreignowned companies that process horsemeat here are using federal loopholes to continue 

killing horses. As a result, Texas provided a large portion of the 39.5 million pounds of 

horsemeat shipped to France, Belgium and Japan in 2005, according to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. There are three horse slaughter plants in the U.S.—all 

foreign-owned—and two are in North Texas (Dallas Crown in Kaufman and Beltex in 

Fort Worth). very day, horse carcasses are shipped out of Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport, bound for Paris. 

This is a black eye on our state and nation, and it demands action. 

According to the USDA, these three foreign-owned plants slaughtered nearly 

100,000 American horses last year. Owners across the country take their horses to 

legitimate sale barns and never suspect that, within days, these horses may end up on 

plates in high-end restaurants in Europe and Japan. The meat processors brag they can 

take a horse "from stable to table in four days." 

And, despite the fact that none of the horsemeat is sold or consumed in the U.S., the 

slaughterhouses receive USDA oversight that costs millions of taxpayer dollars. To add 

insult to injury, these slaughterhouses use accounting loopholes to pay few or no taxes—

shipping 100 percent of the horsemeat and profits to France and Belgium. 
37

You would be shocked at the beautiful horses sent to these slaughterhouses. 

According to the USDA, nearly all of the Thoroughbreds, Arabians, quarter horses and 

wild mustangs arriving at these plants are healthy young horses in "good to excellent 

condition." Because of the quick kill and export, these plants have become convenient 

dumping grounds for stolen horses. In fact, after California instituted a ban on horse 

slaughter in 1998, horse thefts there dropped 34 percent. 

Congressional hearings are scheduled to begin this week on the American Horse 

Slaughter Prevention Act (HR503), a strongly bipartisan bill to end the slaughter of 

horses in the U.S. for human consumption. The bill has the support of 200 co-sponsors 

and is championed by more than 100 organizations, including such industry groups as the 

National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Churchill Downs. 

Every poll taken on this subject shows that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed 

to horse slaughter: In a recent Texas poll, more than 70 percent opposed it. 

The horse has a special place in American culture and history. It helped settle this 

country and provided inspiration for the "horsepower" inside the vehicles that make this 

nation go. It's no surprise that, when reports surfaced that 1986 Kentucky Derby winner 

Ferdinand ended up in a Japan slaughterhouse three years ago, they galvanized a 

movement to close the U.S. plants. 

Let's hope it won't take the slaughter of another Derby winner to put the spotlight on 

this important issue and shut down these killing factories once and for all. 

I strongly oppose horse slaughter. It is un-American. Contact your congressional 

members and let them know these horses deserve better. 

T. Boone Pickens has been a world leader in the oil and gas industry for 50 years. He 

now runs BP Capital LLC, a Dallas-based energy trading partnership. Lifelong animal 

lovers, T. Boone and Madeleine Pickens earned national attention by funding the airlift 

rescue of stranded cats and dogs after Hurricane Katrina. His e-mail address is 

boone@boonepickens.com.

 [The prepared statement of Boone Pickens follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOONE PICKENS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BP CAPITAL

Our Dirty Little Secret 

Texas has a dirty little secret that should shame all of us who live here. 

Although the slaughter of horses for human consumption is illegal in Texas, foreignowned companies who process horsemeat here are using federal loopholes to continue 

killing horses. As a result, Texas provided a large part of the 39.5 million pounds of 

horsemeat shipped to the France, Belgium and Japan in 2005 (according to U.S. 

Department of Agriculture figures). 

There are three horse slaughter plants in the U.S. – all foreign-owned – and two of 

them are right here in North Texas (Dallas Crown in Kaufman and Beltex in Fort Worth). 

Every day horse carcasses are shipped out of DFW Airport bound for Paris’ Charles 

DeGaulle airport. 

This is a black eye on our state and nation that demands action. 

According to the USDA, these three foreign-owned plants slaughtered nearly 

100,000 American horses in 2005. Owners across the country regularly take their horses 

to legitimate sale barns never suspecting that within four days their horse could end up on 

a plate in a high-end restaurant in France. The processors brag that they can take a horse 

“from stable to table in four days!” 

And, despite the fact that none of the horsemeat is sold or consumed in the U.S., the 

horse slaughterhouses receive USDA oversight that costs millions of taxpayer dollars – 
38

all for horsemeat that is sold and consumed as a delicacy in high-dollar markets and 

restaurants across Europe and Japan. To add insult to injury, these slaughterhouses use 

accounting loopholes to pay little or no taxes – shipping 100% of the horsemeat and the 

profits to France and Belgium. 

You would be shocked at the horses sent to theses slaughterhouses. According to the 

USDA, nearly all of the thoroughbreds, Arabians, quarter horses and wild mustangs 

arriving at these plants are healthy young horses that are in “good to excellent condition.” 

Because of the quick kill and export, these slaughter plants have become a convenient 

dumping ground for stolen horses. In fact, horse theft in California dropped 34 percent 

after that state instituted a ban on horse slaughter in 1998. 

Congressional hearings are scheduled to begin this week on the American Horse 

Slaughter Prevention Act (HR 503), a strongly bipartisan bill to end the slaughter of 

horses in the United States for human consumption. The bill has the support of 200 cosponsors, almost a majority of the House. The bill is championed by more than 100 

organizations, including such industry groups as the National Thoroughbred Racing 

Association and Churchill Downs. 

The 109th Congressional session can stop the unabated slaughter of horses that 

continues in our nation. Every poll taken on this subject shows that Americans are 

overwhelmingly opposed to horse slaughter – in a recent Texas poll, more than 70 

percent opposed horse slaughter. 

The horse has a special place in American culture and history. It helped settle this 

country, and provided inspiration for the horsepower that now powers the vehicles that 

make this nation go. It’s no surprise, that when reports surfaced that 1986 Kentucky 

Derby winner Ferdinand ended up in a Japan slaughterhouse three years ago, they 

galvanized a movement to close the U.S. plants. Hopefully, it will not take the slaughter 

of another Derby winner to put the spotlight on this important issue, and shut these killing 

factories down once and for all. 

I strongly oppose horse slaughter. It is un-American. Contact your Congressional 

members and let them know these horses deserve better. 

T. Boone Pickens has been a world leader in the oil and gas industry for 50 years. He 

now runs BP Capital LLC, a Dallas-based energy trading partnership. Life-long animal 

lovers, T. Boone and Madeleine Pickens earned national attention by funding the airlift 

rescue of stranded cats and dogs after Hurricane Katrina. 

 MR. STEARNS. Dr. Beaver. 

DR. BEAVER. Distinguished Congressmen, my name is Bonnie 

Beaver and I am a past president of the American Veterinary Medical 

Association. I am here to explain why the AVMA is opposed to H.R. 

503, The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. In addition to my 

short bibliography, which you have, I want to mention my involvement 

with horses. As a child Roy Rogers was my hero and I named my first 

horse Trigger. Horses were my passion, so I became a veterinarian. 

Horses remain my passion and that is why I am here today. I strongly 

support the AVMA’s opposition to H.R. 503 because it does not 

adequately address certain issues that are important in the adequate 

welfare for horses. 

 We are also concerned about misinformation that has been 

circulating regarding euthanasia techniques. First, let me discuss a few 

misconceptions regarding euthanasia and horse handling. The AVMA 
39

convened a panel of experts, veterinarians and scientists, including 

members from HSUS, to evaluate the research status of chemical and 

physical euthanasia methods. I chaired that panel. That panel’s report, a 

copy of which has been provided for the record, defines euthanasia as 

humane death, in which unconsciousness comes rapidly in the process. 

 The AVMA panel on euthanasia report recommends two types of 

euthanasia for horses; an overdose of barbiturates, anesthesia; and the 

use of a penetrating captive bolt with appropriate restraint. The 

penetrating captive bolt is not a stun gun. It causes instantaneous death 

due to the destruction of brain tissue. Let me repeat, instantaneous death. 

The comments about appropriate restraint do not mean that the horse’s 

head must be completely immobilized, but instead, that it should be in a 

position to allow skin contact with the penetrating captive bolt. 

 No form of euthanasia is pretty to watch because horses are large 

animals and terminal movements after brain death can easily be 

misinterpreted as struggling efforts. There is also the misconception that 

horses panic when they come into a restraint box. In fact, causing 

excitement or panic can result in the injury to both the horse and persons 

nearby. Instead, working the animals quietly, as required by USDA 

regulations, allows the horse to enter the restraint box without injury. 

Once in confinement, horses become passive because they recognize that 

their instinctive ability to flee has been thwarted. 

 We understand that the supporters of H.R. 503 are arguing that the 

transportation of horses to slaughter plants is also inhumane. I would 

remind you that current USDA regulations, which we included for the 

written record, were developed and implemented with significant input 

from the AVMA, the American Association of Equine Practitioners and 

other horse groups, as well as from the Humane Society of the United 

States and other groups currently arguing against the very regulations 

they helped design. Welfare is the biggest concern of the AVMA for 

those horses that would be impacted by the ban on horse slaughter. 

 Currently, horse rescue and retirement facilities in the United States 

have a maximum capacity of about 6,000 horses. It would be an extreme 

challenge to create facilities for 15 times that number every year. As 

shown in the horse welfare collation fiscal impact document, which is 

included for the record and has already been experienced in the case of 

the wild horses in the western United States, the cumulative cost for the 

large number of horses is very expensive. The American Horse 

Slaughter Prevention Act does not address financial support required for 

the care of those horses given up by their owners and inadequate funding 

has a huge potential to create opportunities for inadequate facilities and 

care. 
40

 Watching a horse slowly die from starvation or disease is not only 

distressing, it is cruel. Furthermore, horse retirement facilities and 

sanctuaries are not regulated, so there is no way to ensure the horses 

living there will receive adequate care. Carcass disposal of euthanized 

horses can create wildlife and environmental concerns. Scavenger 

species can be killed by the chemical agents in discarded tissues. Burial 

is not permitted in many areas and chemicals will contaminate the soil. 

While euthanasia, carcass removal and burial are each expensive, 

cremation can cost as much as $1,500. Bio-digesters are not commonly 

available yet. 

 The AVMA is concerned that a well-intentioned effort will have 

serious consequences on the welfare of unwanted horses. The people 

supporting this bill fail to take into account the ramifications that would 

result from its passage. They are making this into an emotionally 

charged issue instead of offering solutions to the problems that would be 

created. We ask that you please do what is right for the horses’ welfare 

and not support H.R. 503. Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Bonnie Beaver, DVM, follows:] 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF BONNIE BEAVER, DVM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN 

COLLEGE OF VETERINARY BEHAVIOURISTS, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Summary of Testimony 

• The AVMA opposes HR 503, The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. 

• HR 503 fails to adequately address the unintended consequences of imposing a 

ban on the processing of horses. 

• The Penetrating Captive Bolt Gun causes instantaneous death and is an 

acceptable form of euthanasia for horses. 

• Transportation of Horses to Slaughter is highly regulated by the USDA. The 

transportation guidelines were developed with input from the AVMA, AAEP, 

other horse groups, the Humane Society of the United States, and other animal 

protection groups. 

• Welfare is the biggest concern of the AVMA for those horses that would be 

impacted by a ban on horse slaughter. 

• There are not enough rescue and retirement facilities, and these facilities are 

not regulated so there is no way to ensure that the horses would get adequate 

care. 

• The legislation does not address the financial support required to care for the 

horses given up by their owners. 

• The legislation does not address the disposal of over 90,000 horse carcasses if 

horse slaughter is banned. 

Distinguished Members of Congress, my name is Bonnie Beaver and I am a past 

president of the American Veterinary Medical Association. I am here to explain why the 

AVMA opposes HR 503 – The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. 

I have provided you with my professional credentials, but I also want to briefly 

mention my involvement with horses. As a child, Roy Rogers was my hero and I named 
41

my first horse Trigger. Horses were my passion, and had much to do with why I became 

a veterinarian. They remain my passion, and that is why I am appearing before you today. 

I strongly support the AVMA’s opposition to HR 503 because the bill does not 

adequately address certain issues that are critically important to ensuring the welfare of 

horses that would be affected by it. We are also concerned that incorrect information has 

been circulated regarding what euthanasia techniques are appropriate for horses. 

First, let me correct a few misconceptions regarding the handling and euthanasia of 

horses. The AVMA convened a panel of experts, veterinarians and scientists, which I 

chaired, to evaluate what was known about chemical and physical euthanasia methods. 

In that panel’s report, a copy of which has been provided for the record, euthanasia is 

defined as a “humane death” in which unconsciousness is rapid and followed by the 

cessation of vital functions. The report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia recommends 

two types of euthanasia for horses—an overdose of barbiturate anesthetic and the use of a 

penetrating captive-bolt gun with appropriate head restraint. The penetrating captive bolt 

is NOT a stun gun. It causes instantaneous death due to the destruction of brain tissue. 

Let me repeat – instantaneous death. Statements contained in the panel’s report about the 

importance of appropriate head restraint do not mean that the horse’s head must be 

completely immobilized, but instead that it should be in a position to allow skin contact 

with the penetrating captive-bolt gun. Involuntary movements after brain death are 

common in horses undergoing euthanasia, and are often misinterpreted as struggling by 

those without a clear understanding of the process. Although such movements may be 

discomforting for the people who are watching, such movements are not and should not 

be interpreted as an indication that a horse is experiencing distress. 

It has also been incorrectly stated that horses entering restraint boxes prior to 

application of the penetrating captive bolt invariably panic. In fact, states of excitement 

or panic in horses can result in injury to both the horse and people nearby, so this is 

something those involved with the horse slaughter process work very hard to prevent. 

Instead, and as required by USDA regulations, experienced individuals handle the horse 

appropriately and quietly; this allows the horse to enter the restraint box without injury. 

Once confined, horses become passive because they recognize that their instinctive 

ability to flee has been thwarted. 

Second, we understand that supporters of HR 503 contend that methods used to 

transport horses to slaughter plants are inhumane. I will take this opportunity to remind 

you that current USDA regulations on the transport of horses to slaughter, which we have 

included for the written record, were developed and implemented with significant input 

from the AVMA, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, other horse-related 

groups and humane organizations. Among the humane organizations involved were the 

Humane Society of the United States and several other of the advocacy groups that are 

currently arguing against these regulations. We have yet to receive a satisfactory response 

from these groups about why they now object to the very regulations they helped draft. 

Third, and foremost, the welfare of the horses that would be impacted by a ban on 

slaughter is the biggest concern of the AVMA. Currently, horse rescue and retirement 

facilities in the United States have a maximum capacity of about 6000 horses. It would be 

a daunting, and probably impossible, task to create facilities that could house an 

additional 10 times that number of horses every year. Creating these facilities and 

properly caring for each horse in them costs money. As shown in the Horse Welfare 

Coalition Fiscal Impact document, which has been included for the record, and as we 

have already experienced in the process of trying to manage wild Mustangs in the 

western United States, cumulative costs incurred for the care of a large number of horses 

are high. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act does not provide the financial 

support required to ensure that horses given up by their owners will be adequately cared 

for, and inadequate funding has a huge potential to create opportunities for inadequate 

care. Watching a horse slowly die from starvation or disease is not only distressing, it’s 
42

cruel. Furthermore, horse retirement facilities and sanctuaries are not regulated so there is 

no way to ensure the horses living there will receive adequate care. 

Finally, disposing of the carcasses of euthanatized horses can be expensive and 

creates wildlife and environmental concerns. Euthanasia, carcass removal, and burial are 

each expensive, and cremation can cost as much as $1500. Scavenger species can be 

killed by chemical agents in discarded tissues. Burial is not permitted in many areas, and 

chemicals can contaminate the soil. Other disposal methods, such as biodigestors, show 

promise but are not yet readily available. 

The AVMA is concerned that HR 503, although a well-intended effort, will have 

serious negative consequences for the welfare of unwanted horses. The people supporting 

this bill fail to take into account the ramifications of its passage. They are making this 

into an emotionally charged issue instead of offering solutions to the problem of 

unwanted horses, and are potentially creating more welfare and environmental concerns 

in the process. We ask that you please do what is right for the horses’ welfare and not 

support HR 503. 

Thank you. 
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102

 MR. STEARNS. Thank you. Dr. Hogan. 

DR. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 

503. Please allow me a moment just to introduce myself and give you a 

perspective as to why I feel my testimony is important and to help clarify 

some of the issues surrounding this bill. 

 My name is Patricia Hogan. I am an equine veterinary surgeon. I 

have been actively involved in the horse industry my whole life. My 

clientele is somewhat exclusive. I work primarily on some of the best 

thoroughbred and standard bred race horses in this country. Oftentimes, 
103

the market value of my patients exceeds several million dollars. Several 

of my patients, such as Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex have gone on to 

become household names. Yet I am here today to provide you with 

support for the tens of thousands of horses that are unwanted or bear 

little or no market value. 

 Let me just make something very clear before I start. I am not an 

animal activist. I had filet mignon for dinner last night and this is not 

about eating meat for me. I am here because I am a veterinarian and for 

me, personally, I am someone who has dedicated my whole life to caring 

for horses. The slaughter issue is not entirely about the act of slaughter, 

itself. It is about the welfare of the horse throughout this whole process, 

that being the manner in which they are treated from the moment they 

leave their place of origin to their arrival at the slaughterhouse. 

 I am surprised that no one ever really seems to openly discuss the 

absolutely deplorable way these animals are treated on their way to the 

slaughterhouse. Once these horses enter the path to the slaughterhouse, 

their treatment is not humane in any way. I dismiss the triviality of 

studies that detailed a number of whinnies per hour or the number of 

horses that arrive with or without a broken leg for use as statistical 

evidence of humane treatment. Or the proclaimed accuracy of the 

captive bolt. Sometimes we, as veterinarians, and yes, I mean the 

AVMA and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, of which 

both organizations I am a member of, we hide behind the term humane 

and it is often used as a catchall phrase to make us feel that things are 

done correctly and according to the letter of the law. 

 However, the whole act of being taken from an environment that is 

familiar, thrown into a hostile herd environment, shipped very long 

distances without food or water, and then placed in an assembly line 

where they can see, smell, hear, and sense the terror of what is happening 

in front of them is certainly not humane. We all agree that there are 

levels of intelligence dictating the rank of species in this world and at 

some point, we must draw the line. Horses are very intelligent and can 

perceive fear in a different manner than other forms of livestock, such as 

the chicken or the cow. 

 The concept of humane treatment therefore entails different basic 

requirements for different species. The American culture does not accept 

consumption of our dogs or cats for food, but there are other cultures in 

this world that do, yet we do not allow the commercial slaughter of dogs 

and cats for export in this country because we, as Americans, find that 

practice deplorable. That being said, Americans do not eat horse meat 

and in poll after poll, the American people say that the practice of horse 

slaughter is unacceptable and should be stopped. Yet we allow our 
104

American horses to be slaughtered for foreign consumption. Where is 

the difference here? 

 It is important to remember that horses are not and nor have they 

ever been raised as food animals in this country. The American people 

have made it very clear that horse meat is not and will never be a 

desirable food item gracing their tables. Horses have traditionally been 

work animals throughout our history, but as society changes and evolves, 

so has the role of the horse changed in our culture. The majority of 

horses now are more commonly companion or sport animals. 

 I have personally been to a slaughterhouse as a surgery resident 

while in Texas and I found it to be a disgrace. I was not there on an 

announced visit, as those who defend horse slaughter are. I was there to 

collect specimens for a research project. In my ignorance I actually 

never even knew or thought about horse slaughter before I had been 

there. I was absolutely revolted at the way the horses were treated and 

the behavior of the people that were working there. 

 I believe there is some confusion regarding humane euthanasia and 

horse slaughter. We must remember that these are two distinctly 

different processes. Horse slaughter is not euthanasia by anyone’s 

definition and to equate the two insults your intelligence. Euthanasia is a 

peaceful process that most commonly involves the overdose of an 

intravenous drug administered by a veterinarian. Horse are not afraid 

and there is no fear of anticipation. In most cases, the animal is sedated 

and then euthanized in a familiar environment. 

 Horse slaughter uses a method called a captive bolt which involves 

aiming a bolt gun at the forehead of a partially restrained horse in what is 

commonly termed the kill pen. This pen is at the end of an assembly line 

of horses that are fed through the plant. If the bolt is applied properly, 

the horse is rendered unconscious upon impact and drops to the ground 

so that the carcass can be bled out prior to death. There is a great deal of 

room for human and technical error with the captive bolt method and the 

recommendation for adequate restraint is loosely defined and open for 

interpretation. 

 If we are going to talk about horse slaughter as an economic 

industry, then there is the additional and timely issue of drug residues in 

American horse meat that is rarely addressed. The beef, swine, and 

poultry industry are highly regulated as far as permissible drug residues. 

The fear, of course, is the introduction of drug residues into the human 

food chain and the possible negative impact on human health. Horses 

receive a large amount of commonly prescribed medications expressly 

prohibited for use on animals intended for human consumption. 

 Is the matter not addressed simply because the meat is exported for 

foreign consumption? Would it be different if this meat was entering the 
105

American food chain? As an equine veterinarian, I think we surely can 

do better. Is slaughter really the answer to this problem of irresponsible 

ownership? That really is the key and the root of this. Certainly, it is the 

easiest way out, but aren’t we more intelligent than that? Americans do 

not eat horse meat. The American public clearly has overwhelmingly 

voiced their opposition to this practice and there are humane 

considerations that are being overlooked. 

 We are all concerned about the fate of unwanted horses if and when 

slaughter is eliminated, but allowing the practice to continue is not the 

right answer to the problem. Surely, we can do better and I believe it is 

painting with a very broad brush and it is too simplistic to assume that if 

slaughter is eliminated then 80 to 90,000 horses per year are going to be 

abused and die of starvation. That really just simply will not happen. 

 We have the opportunity to rid ourselves of this form of cruelty by 

passing this bill, something that should have been done years ago. We 

need to make sure that as we try to clean up this complicated problem, 

we continue to do whatever we can to care for horses. That is my role 

and this is where our combined efforts should be focused. I urge you to 

swiftly send this bill to the House floor and call upon the Congress to 

vote to end horse slaughter once and for all. Thank you very much. 

 [The prepared statement of Patricia Hogan, VMD, ACVS, follows:] 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA HOGAN, VDM, ACVS, NEW JERSEY EQUINE 

CLINIC

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I wish to thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today in support of H.R. 503, the 

American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. 

Please allow me a moment to introduce myself and provide you with a perspective 

as to why I feel my testimony will help clarify some of the issues surrounding the 

discussion of H.R. 503. My name is Dr. Patricia Hogan and I am an equine veterinary 

surgeon. I have been actively involved with the horse industry all of my life. I am 

originally a New Jersey native but was a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania’s 

School of Veterinary Medicine. I completed several years of specialty training in both 

Kentucky and Texas in order to refine my veterinary focus to the surgical disciplines of 

the horse. I am a board-certified surgeon and have been practicing exclusively in the 

field of equine surgery for the past 10 years. I have been fortunate enough in my career 

to have received international recognition for my work in the treatment of equine sports 

injuries, arthroscopy, and internal fixation of fractures. My clientele is somewhat 

exclusive – I work primarily on some of the best Thoroughbred and Standardbred 

racehorses in this country – oftentimes the market value of some of my patients run into 

the many millions of dollars. Several of my patients, such as SMARTY JONES and 

AFLEET ALEX, have gone on to become household names. Yet I am here today before 

you to provide support for the tens of thousands of horses that bear little to no market 

value - the unwanted horse. 

For me personally, as a veterinarian who makes a living caring for horses, the 

slaughter issue is not entirely about the act of slaughter itself. It is about the welfare of 
106

the horse throughout this whole process – that being the manner in which they are treated 

from the moment they leave their place of origin to their arrival at the slaughterhouse. 

I am surprised that no one ever seems to openly discuss the absolutely deplorable 

way these animals are treated on their way to the slaughter house. Once these horses enter 

the path to the slaughter house, their treatment is not humane in any way. I dismiss the 

triviality of the studies detailing the number of whinnies per hour or the number of horses 

that arrive with or without a broken leg as statistical evidence of humane treatment. Or 

the proclaimed accuracy of the captive-bolt. Sometimes, we as veterinarians (and yes, I 

mean the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) and American 

Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) here) hide behind the term "humane" and it is 

often used as the "catch-all" phrase to make us feel that things are done correctly and 

within the letter of the law. However, the whole act of being taken from an environment 

that is familiar, then thrown into a hostile herd environment, shipped very long distances 

without food or water, and then placed in an assembly line where they can see, smell, 

hear, and sense the terror of what is happening in front of them is not humane. Certainly 

we all agree that there are levels of intelligence dictating the rank of species in this world 

and at some point we must draw the line. Horses are very intelligent and can perceive 

fear in a different manner than other forms of livestock such as a chicken or even a cow. 

The concept of “humane treatment” entails different basic requirements for different 

species. 

The American culture does not accept consumption of our dogs or cats for food, but 

there are other cultures in this world that do. Yet we do not allow the commercial 

slaughter of dogs and cats for export in this country because we as Americans find that 

practice deplorable. That being said, Americans do not eat horsemeat and in poll after 

poll, the American people say that the practice of horse slaughter is unacceptable and 

should be stopped – yet we allow our American horses to be slaughtered for foreign 

consumption. Where is the difference here? It is important to remember that horses are 

not nor have they ever been raised as food animals in this country. The American people 

have made it very clear that horsemeat is not and will never be a desirable food item 

gracing their tables. Horses have traditionally been work animals throughout our history. 

But as society changes and evolves, so has the role of the horse changed in our culture. 

The majority of horses are now more commonly companion or sport animals. 

I have personally been to a horse slaughterhouse as a surgery resident while in Texas 

and I found it to be a disgrace. I was not there on an "announced" visit as those who 

defend horse slaughter were - I was there to collect specimens for a research project. In 

my ignorance, I had actually never even thought much about slaughter before then. I was 

absolutely revolted at the way the horses were treated and the behavior of the people that 

were employed there. I have also been to a beef and a chicken slaughter plant too. The 

treatment of and reaction by the horses was very much in contrast to that of the other 

livestock I had observed. 

I believe there is some confusion regarding humane euthanasia and horse slaughter. 

We must remember that these are two distinctly different processes. Horse slaughter is 

NOT euthanasia by anyone’s definition. Euthanasia is a peaceful process that most 

commonly involves the overdose of an intravenous anesthetic drug administered by a 

veterinarian. The horses are not afraid and there is no fear of anticipation. In most cases, 

the animal is sedated and then euthanized in a familiar environment. Horse slaughter 

uses a method called the captive-bolt which involves aiming a bolt gun at the forehead of 

a partially-restrained horse in what is commonly termed the “kill pen”. This pen is at the 

end of an assembly line of horses that are fed through the plant. If the bolt is applied 

properly, the horse is rendered unconscious upon impact and drops to the ground so that 

the carcass can then be bled out prior to death. There is a great deal of room for human 

and technical error with the captive bolt method and the recommendation for ‘adequate 

restraint’ is loosely defined and open for interpretation. 
107

 If anyone on this subcommittee would like to see videos of each process I would be 

happy to provide them for you so that you may judge for yourself which is the ‘humane’ 

method. I am confident that the difference would be dramatic to you. 

If we are going to talk about horse slaughter as an economic industry, then there is 

the additional and timely issue of drug residues in American horsemeat that is rarely 

addressed. The beef, swine and poultry industry are highly regulated as far as 

permissible drug residues. The fear of course is the introduction of drug residues into the 

human food chain and the possible negative impact on human health. Horses receive a 

large amount of commonly prescribed medications expressly prohibited for use on 

animals intended for human consumption. Is this matter not addressed simply because 

this meat is exported for foreign consumption? Would it be different if this meat was 

entering the American food chain? 

As an equine veterinarian, I think that surely we can do better. Is disposal really the 

answer to this problem of too many horses? Certainly it is the easiest way out but aren’t 

we more intelligent than that? Americans do not eat horsemeat, the American public 

clearly has overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to this practice, and there are humane 

considerations that are being overlooked. When organizations such as the AAEP and the 

AVMA opposed the bill in a blanket fashion, equine veterinarians suffered a major public 

relations blow. The public, much of the horse industry, and most of the rescue and 

retirement organizations simply cannot believe that the equine veterinary world - the 

"protector of the horse" - is "for slaughter". I know that is not what these organizations 

meant when they opposed the bill but it is the perception that was given. This position 

has translated into the AAEP being "pro-slaughter". I know the intentions were good but 

the way they went about it was not. We are all concerned about the fate of unwanted 

horses if and when horse slaughter is eliminated but allowing the practice to continue is 

not the right answer to the problem. Surely we can do better. 

The Unwanted Horse Coalition is a step in the right direction, but even that effort 

would never have been considered had it not been for the introduction of the American 

Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Nobody was talking about these very important issues 

until Congressman John Sweeney, Congressman John Spratt and Congressman Ed 

Whitfield introduced this sound piece of legislation. 

While the introduction of the AHSPA has been a catalyst for discussion into 

ensuring the humane treatment of horses it has also sparked a surge in horse rescues, 

cruelty awareness and responsible horse ownership education across the country, all 

things that must continue to expand. In addition, a valuable resource was created in 

conjunction with veterinarians, equine rescues and humane groups, called Basic 

Guidelines for Operating an Equine Rescue or Retirement Facility which is currently 

being used by rescues across the US. These provide a basic outline for individuals 

interested in opening rescues or assisting those currently operating a sanctuary to ensure 

they have adequate information to ensure the proper care of horses they may care for. 

There are many things we need to clean up within the horse community such as over 

breeding, cruelty, neglect, and proper long-term care. People must be educated and made 

responsible horse owners. In my opinion, this is not merely an argument about whether 

or not you are for slaughter. That is too simple with the current state of all the unwanted 

horses in this country. The gray area in-between needs a lot of work and for me, that is 

where I personally want to be. We have the opportunity to rid ourselves of a form of 

cruelty by passing the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, something that should 

have been done years ago. We need to make sure that as we try to clean up this 

complicated problem, we continue to do whatever we can to continue to "care for 

horses". This is where our combined efforts should be focused. I urge this 

Subcommittee to swiftly send the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act to the House 

floor and call upon the House of Representatives to vote to end horse slaughter, once and 

for all. 
108

Thank you again Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify before the 

Subcommittee in support of H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. 

 MR. STEARNS. Thank you. Dr. Corey. 

DR. COREY. Chairman Stearns, distinguished members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

My name is Dr. Douglas Corey. I have been an equine practitioner for 

30 years. I am here today not only as a long-time horse owner, but also 

as President-elect of the American Association of Equine Practitioners. 

The AAEP is a professional association representing nearly 7,300 equine 

veterinarians worldwide. Our mission is dedicated to the health and 

welfare of the horse. I would like to make three main points today. 

 First, this bill will negatively impact the health and welfare of horses 

across the country and offers no solution to the underlying problem of 

unwanted horses. Second, horse processing at a USDA-regulated facility 

does provide a humane euthanasia option. And third, AAEP has 

undertaken a leadership role in working with the industry to develop 

solutions to this industry problem. 

 I turn to my first point. The way this bill is written, it will negatively 

impact horses and it offers no solutions. In addition, we strongly believe 

that if passed, this bill will not stop the slaughter of horses. We believe 

horse processing is symptomatic of a larger problem affecting the 

welfare of our Nation’s horses and this problem is created by issues that 

are surrounding unwanted horses. The unwanted represents a group 

within a domestic equine population that are no longer wanted, needed, 

or useful, or their owners are no longer interested in them or capable of 

providing physical or financial care. 

 While this bill and its supporters are well-intentioned, its passage 

without adequate funding or an infrastructure in place to care for 

unwanted horses, will create a series of unintended consequences. 

Therefore, the AAEP membership vigorously opposes this legislation as 

it is currently written. How and where are we going to put these horses? 

Simply put, there is not enough funding, volunteers, or placement 

options for all of the unwanted horses across this country. Current 

rescue and retirement facilities are at a maximum and cannot 

accommodate the surplus. 

 In addition, many people that adopt horses simply can’t afford to 

provide proper care and feeding for a horse. While many of these folks 

have good hearts, the sad fact is that some of these horses are headed for 

a much worse fate than processing. We see this regularly as 

veterinarians. Also, this bill does not address the funding required to 

care of or dispose of an additional 90,000 horses per year that would 

result. Inadequate funding often creates inadequate care. The AAEP, in 

addition to the Horse Welfare Coalition of 64 organizations which 
109

represents million of members, horse owners, farmers, and citizens, 

believe that processing is a necessary option that is currently needed for 

the industry to prevent abuse and neglect. 

 My second point is that horse processing at a USDA-regulated 

facility provides a humane euthanasia option. In July of 2003, several 

members of the AAEP leadership, including myself, did visit a Beltex 

plant in Texas to see the process first-hand. A USDA veterinarian was 

on site to regulate the humane treatment of animals. During our visit, we 

witnessed a professionally run operation that treated horses with dignity 

throughout the process and euthanized them humanely. 

 The AAEP believes that processing is not the ideal solution for 

addressing the large number of unwanted horses in the United States, 

however if a horse owner is unable or unwilling to provide humane care 

and no one is able to assume the responsibility, humane euthanasia at a 

USDA regulated facility is an acceptable alternative to a life of suffering, 

inadequate care, or abandonment. I ask a question; how many 

Congressional Members have ever seen a horse euthanized? And how 

many have seen a horse neglected and starved? I have seen both and 

humane euthanasia at a regulated facility is much preferred to seeing a 

horse starve to death. 

 My final point, the AAEP has taken a strong leadership role in 

working on and developing potential solutions for many of the unwanted 

horse problems. Our association has been a renowned leader in equine 

healthcare. Our members have spent thousands of hours educating horse 

owners and the industry about the importance of caring for horses. And 

additionally, in 2004 we developed care guidelines for equine rescue and 

retirement facilities. 

 In 2005 we spearheaded the first ever unwanted horse summit. A 

total of 26 equine industry organizations, animal care groups, and other 

stakeholders, including Representative Ed Whitfield from Kentucky, met 

for the purpose of examining the causes of unwanted horses and 

approaches to dealing with this segment of the population. Our members 

are on the front line every day helping horses and are committed to 

solving this problem. 

 In summary, the equine industry is working together to address the 

root cause of the unwanted horse. However and most importantly, please 

remember that your vote on H.R. 503 is not free. This bill, should it be 

enacted, will negatively impact the health and welfare of horses and 

offers no solution to help unwanted horses. We are confident that if you 

vote no on H.R. 503 you can feel secure that you are helping to protect 

the thousands of horses from a life of abuse and neglect and possible 

abandonment and that the equine industry is working to reduce the 
110

number of horses being processed. The bottom line is that the industry 

can solve this. Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Douglas Corey, DVM, follows:] 

THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS COREY, DVM, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN 

ASSOCIATION OF EQUINE PRACTITIONERS

Chairman Stearns, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Dr. Douglas Corey and I have been 

an equine veterinarian for the past 30 years in a five-person mixed animal practice 

located in Walla Walla, Washington. I am here today, not only as a long-time horse 

owner, but also as the President Elect of the American Association of Equine 

Practitioners. The AAEP is a professional association, which represents nearly 7,300 

equine veterinarians worldwide, many whom are long-time horse owners as well. Our 

mission is dedicated to the health and welfare of the horse. Our world headquarters are 

located in Lexington, Kentucky. I have served as the Chair of the AAEP’s Equine 

Welfare Committee and the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare 

Committee. I currently Chair the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association Animal 

Welfare Committee and serve on the American Horse Council Animal Welfare 

Committee. 

I want to make three main points today: 

• First, this bill will negatively impact the health and welfare of horses across the 

country and offers no solution to the problem of unwanted horses. 

• Second, horse processing at a U.S.D.A. regulated facility provides a humane 

euthanasia. 

• Third, the AAEP has taken a leadership role in working on and developing 

potential solutions for many of the unwanted horse problems. 

I turn now to my first point – the way this bill is written will negatively impact the 

welfare of horses and it offers no solution to the problem of unwanted horses. In 

addition, we feel strongly that, if passed, this bill will not stop the slaughter of horses. 

Guided by a dedication to equine welfare, the AAEP is actively involved in the 

issues that surround the care of unwanted horses in the United States. The AAEP has 

evaluated H.R. 503, based on the legislation’s ability to serve the health and welfare of 

the horse. The intent of this legislation is to ban the transportation and sale of horses for 

processing for human consumption and other purposes. The AAEP believes processing 

is symptomatic of a larger problem affecting the welfare of our nation’s horses, and this 

problem is created by issues surrounding unwanted horses. 

The Unwanted horse represents a group of horse's within the domestic equine 

population that are no longer wanted, needed or useful or their owners are no longer 

interested in them or capable of providing physical care or financial care. 

While H.R. 503 and its supporters are well intentioned, the passage of this 

legislation, without adequate funding or an infrastructure in place to care for unwanted 

horses it will create a series of unintended consequences that negatively impact the health 

and welfare of the horse. Therefore, the AAEP and 84% of its membership, based on a 

2002 membership survey, vigorously oppose this legislation as it is currently written. 

The AAEP’s chief concerns regarding H.R. 503 are: 

1. Long-term placement of affected horses. How and where are we going to 

put these horses? The volunteers, alternative homes, rescue and retirement facilities 

are already stressed to the maximum. Simply put, there is not enough funding, 

volunteers or placement options for all of the unwanted horses across this country. 

Giving credit to the many volunteers and people involved with these sanctuaries and 
111

facilities, their good hearts are there, but unfortunately, their good hearts are not 

going to take care of these animals for 20 to 30 years, not to mention the financing 

needed to care for these horses. This simple fact is that should this bill be enacted, 

the number of facilities will have to increase significantly in order to match the 

demand. 

 In addition, many of the individuals that adopt horses are not financially secure 

enough to adopt and provide proper care and feeding for a horse. While many of 

these people are well-intentioned individuals, the sad fact is that many of these 

horses are headed for a much worse fate of starvation, abuse and neglect. 

Unfortunately, many of the people that adopt horses have no idea of the cost to care 

for a horse. 

It would be nice to absorb every unwanted horse into the equine society, but as 

the years go on, the sheer numbers of horses, and people with the great hearts will 

not be able to sustain this. 

2. The Funding of care for unwanted horses. H.R. 503 does not address the 

funding required to care for or dispose of an additional 80,000 horses per year. 

Assuming an average cost of $5 per day to provide a horse’s basic needs, the 

funding needed per year, per horse is approximately $1,825. This does not include 

veterinary and farrier care. Inadequate funding often creates inadequate care, which 

is a significant welfare concern for unwanted horses. Disposal alone can range 

from burial $75.00 to cremation up to $2,000.

3. Ambiguous language of the bill itself. H.R. 503 seeks to prohibit the 

shipping, transportation, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, 

selling or donation of horses and other equines to be processed, and for other 

purposes. “Other purposes” is not defined and, if taken literally, could mean the 

transportation of horses for any reason, including sporting events, sales, recreation 

or transportation for medical care. This language is detrimental to the equine 

industry as a whole and if not addressed, could have unintended consequences. 

 

The AAEP, in addition to the Horse Welfare Coalition of 64 organizations 

represents millions of members, horse owners, farms and citizens, who believe that 

processing is a necessary option that needs to be available to the equine industry to 

prevent abuse and neglect to a certain population of horses. 

My second point is that horse processing at a U.S.D.A. regulated facility provides 

humane euthanasia. 

In July of 2002, several members of the AAEP leadership, including myself, visited 

the Beltex plant in Texas to see this process first-hand. A U.S.D.A. veterinarian was onsite to regulate the humane treatment of the animals throughout the process. During our 

visit, we witnessed a professionally run operation that treated horses with dignity 

throughout the process and euthanized them humanely. 

Based on U.S.D.A. figures, more than 80,000 U.S. horses were processed in the U.S. 

in 2005, representing approximately 1 percent of the domestic equine population. The 

AAEP’s position on processing is that horses destined for a processing facility should be: 

• Treated humanely and with dignity; 

• Transported according to guidelines approved by the U.S.D.A. in 2002 

regarding the commercial transportation of equines to processing; and 

• Euthanized in a humane manner in accordance with guidelines established by 

the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 

The AAEP believes that processing is not the ideal solution for addressing the large 

number of unwanted horses in the U.S. However, if a horse owner is unable or unwilling 

to provide humane care and no one is able to assume the responsibility, humane 
112

euthanasia by captive bolt at a U.S.D.A.-regulated facility is an acceptable alternative to a 

life of suffering, inadequate care or abandonment. 

I ask the question, how many congressional members have ever seen a horse 

euthanized, and how many have seen a horse neglected and starved? The opponents of 

this legislation, animal health care providers, have seen both. We have consciously 

decided the humane euthanasia alternative at the processing plants is infinitely preferable 

to seeing a horse starve to death. 

Nobody likes or truly wants to see a horse euthanized, but when care is poor, horses 

suffer, owner neglect and abuse is evident, euthanasia at a processing plant is a humane 

option. 

My final point has to do with the efforts that AAEP has taken a strong leadership 

role towards working on and developing potential solutions for many of the unwanted 

horse problems. 

For more than fifty years, our association has been a renowned leader in promoting 

and fostering the welfare of horses. The AAEP and its members have spent numerous 

hours of their own time educating horse owners and the industry about the importance of 

caring for horses. Education takes a long time to show real change; however, we are 

confident that through our efforts, and the efforts of other equine organizations and 

through the assistance of congress, we can continue to decrease the number of horses 

heading to a slaughter facility. The AAEP is committed to educating its members and the 

public about the health and welfare of horses, and especially unwanted horses. 

One of the many efforts that AAEP has worked on towards education includes the 

development and publishing in 2004 of a 32-page booklet titled the AAEP Care 

Guidelines for Equine Rescue and Retirement Facilities. 

In April of 2005, the nation’s first-ever Unwanted Horse Summit, an effort spearheaded by the AAEP, took place during the American Horse Council Annual Meeting. A 

total of 26 equine industry organizations, animal welfare groups and other stakeholders, 

including Representative Ed Whitfield from the first district of Kentucky, met for the 

purpose of examining the causes of unwanted horses and identifying approaches to 

dealing with this segment of the equine population. Following the Summit, a coalition 

was formed to continue the work until a more formal governance structure could be 

formed. 

Over the last 18 months, the group developed a mission statement, began identifying 

long-term solutions for improving the quality of life for unwanted horses, and considered 

an operating plan that ultimately led to the suggestion that the American Horse Council 

provide a permanent administrative home for the group’s work. 

In June of this year, it was announced that the coalition was being folded into the 

American Horse Council to begin generating far reaching and practical solutions. The 

mission of the Coalition is to explore ways to reduce the number of horses that are 

unwanted each year and to improve their welfare through education and the efforts of 

organizations committed to the health, safety and responsible care of the horse. Owner 

education will be a focal point. 

So, as you can see, this industry is coming together to address this industry problem. 

Our members are the front line every day helping horses and are committed to solving 

this problem. 

In summary, the equine industry and you, our congressional leaders, must work 

together to address the root cause of the unwanted horse, not just the symptom of 

processing. We need proactive solutions and we believe that the AAEP, veterinarians 

across this country and the equine industry are developing solutions that will continue to 

help decrease the number of horses being processed. However, and most importantly, 

please remember that your vote on H.R. 503 is not a free vote. This bill, should it be 

enacted, will negatively impact the health and welfare of horses across the country and 

offers no solution to the problem of unwanted horses. 
113

The AAEP, a respected group of equine health care providers, are confident that if 

you vote no on H.R. 503, that when you go home and speak to your constituents, can feel 

secure in saying, “I voted no on H.R. 503 in order to protect horses from a life of 

increased abuse, neglect and abandonment. I am confident that the equine industry is 

making great strides to help reduce the number of horses being processed and I supported 

them with my no vote on H.R. 503.” 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Williams.

MR. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. May I reiterate that I am appearing today in my individual 
130

capacity and not representing any of the organizations that were 

mentioned when I was introduced. I am expressing only my own 

opinions. 

 The evidence is building to show that the American people strongly 

oppose horse slaughter once they find out that it exists. The horse racing 

industry depends almost entirely on the perceptions of our customers. 

We are a fashion business. We put on a show for the public. So we have 

issues we have to be constantly concerned with: the honesty of racing, 

medication issues. Horses have similar medication issues as the Olympic 

athletes and other athletes. Horse slaughter is now appearing on the 

horizon. Equine athletes have a well-deserved mystique that brings 

racing fans back generation after generation. 

 So let us talk about Barbaro for a minute. Can we imagine Barbaro 

being sent to slaughter? If he is unable to recover, he won’t be of any 

use to his owners or to the thoroughbred industry. Why not send him to 

Texas? And if not Barbaro, why any other horse? Why should any other 

horse be condemned to this fate? Famous horses have found their way to 

slaughter, as has been mentioned, and this has been a terrible black eye 

for the racing industry. We have to be alert to avoid this kind of problem 

given the nature of our business. We cannot afford to lose even a small 

segment of our fan base. 

 I am not an animal rights activist. I am a horse breeder. I derive my 

livelihood from that business. In fact, the horse business was here once 

before not long ago trying to ask Congress to tighten up rules to control 

animal activists’ interference in horse events and you did. I thank you 

for that. We are here today to look at the opposite end of the spectrum. 

When people find out about horse slaughter, most of them vehemently 

reject it. You have heard what happened in California, you have heard 

what happened in Texas. Now a Federal District judge has ruled that 

Texas cannot enforce its laws and that only Congress can address the 

problem. 

 So what we have are three horse slaughter plants that pay minimal 

taxes, provide few jobs, and they are threatening native industry that 

involves millions of Americans and billions of dollars of economic 

impact. I submit that something is really wrong here. Slaughter is not a 

humane solution to anything. Slaughtered horses are less than 1 percent 

of the horse population in general, a number that the horse industry is 

capable of looking after and the industry is taking steps to do so, as you 

have just heard. 

 I suggest that if forced, the industry will be able to grapple with this 

problem pretty quickly. I am most familiar with the standard bred breed 

and I think that we would be able to surmount our difficulties in a short 

period. There may be other problems for other breeds, breeds that are 
131

introducing 144,000 new horses into the population annually versus the 

standard bred breed, which is at about 11,000, and they have to make 

other decisions. But passage of H.R. 503 would put the burden squarely 

on the horse industry. We breed them, we race them, we sell them, we 

derive all the benefit from them and we should pay for looking after 

them throughout their careers. 

 So I am not asking Congress to take on any of that burden. I am 

asking Congress to require the horse industry to carry the burden, as it 

should, and to put an end to a source of suffering for a creature that 

occupies a unique place in American history and in the American heart. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 [The prepared statement of Russell Williams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL WILLIAMS, VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN HORSE 

COUNCIL; VICE CHAIRMAN, HANOVER SHOE FARMS

 I am a fourth-generation participant in the Standardbred racing industry, from which 

I derive virtually my entire livelihood. Hanover Shoe Farms, in which I am an officer 

and part owner, is the world’s largest breeder of Standardbreds, or trotters and pacers: we 

send nearly three hundred yearlings through the auction sales annually, from which they 

go into training to compete in races at thirty-nine major tracks in the New England and 

Mid-Atlantic States, Kentucky and the Midwest, Florida, and California. As this is 

written our horse population at the farm is 1,315, which includes 77 retired horses. These 

are mostly old broodmares who have outlived their breeding usefulness. They will be 

looked after until they die of natural causes or must be humanely euthanized. 

 Standardbreds have been part of this country’s life for more than 200 years. They 

can be traced back to an English Thoroughbred named Messenger, imported to America 

in the 1790’s, that sired a number of fast trotters. Brown Beauty, the horse that Paul 

Revere borrowed to make his famous midnight ride, was said to be a Narragansett Pacer. 

In addition to being the world’s fastest horse in harness, the Standardbred excels in a 

variety of other equine disciplines. It’s a breed able to face every task with gentleness, 

patience, and endurance. They are wonderful horses. 

 Though I wish to make clear that I am appearing as an active member of the horse 

industry and am not speaking for or representing any particular organization, I am also 

Vice Chairman and a trustee of the American Horse Council, Vice Chairman of the 

United States Trotting Association (the Standardbred breed’s registry organization), and 

an advisory board member of the Standardbred Retirement Foundation. The 

Standardbred Retirement Foundation has arranged nearly 2,000 lifetime adoptions of 

non-competitive racehorses, transitioning some of them into new careers, and providing 

all of them with the care and dignity they deserve. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing on H.R. 503, the Horse 

Slaughter Prevention Act. Commercial horse slaughter is a dark and ugly secret in the 

United States and, in my opinion, a serious threat to the horse industry itself. In essence, 

horse racing is a form of entertainment; consequently we depend on public perception. 

We compete, nowadays, with many other forms of entertainment, and we work 

constantly to maintain high standards of quality and integrity so that we may continue to 

earn our customers’ loyalty. If horse racing has an edge over any other type of 

entertainment, it is the mystique that surrounds the horse itself. In a race, horses can 

display a unique distillation of beauty, power, speed, and above all courage, which 

enables an individual to defeat all expectations and prevail by sheer force of will. Public 
132

awareness that we subject this noble animal to the needless suffering that goes with 

commercial horse slaughter could turn our customers against the sport of horse racing. 

 Commercial horse slaughter is not humanely carried out. I have seen continuing 

violations of state and federal transportation regulations where horses are being shipped 

to slaughter from the livestock sales. These violations continue because enforcement is 

extremely difficult. The protective regulations were promulgated in the first place 

because of the deplorable conditions under which horses were being loaded and sent on 

the long ride to slaughter, and in my opinion regulation will never be very effective. This 

problem also exists at the sales themselves, where pregnant mares, stallions, elderly, 

debilitated, blind, and injured horses are jumbled together and sold in an atmosphere that 

makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to sort out individuals that should be 

euthanized on the spot. 

 A logical argument can be made that ending slaughter would put some huge number 

of additional horses at risk of neglect by their owners, and thus of needless suffering. 

This argument only has force, however, if you assume that slaughter is humanely carried 

out, which it is not. Such an argument does not mean that slaughter is part of any 

humane solution to the problem of unwanted horses; it means only that slaughter is a 

more acceptable evil than the alternative. 

Congress need not accept the evil of slaughter. By ending slaughter, which is the only 

aspect of this problem now within legislative control, Congress will not only stop the 

needless suffering that accompanies slaughter, but also cause people like me, members of 

the horse industry itself, to move faster and work harder to put our own house in order. 

We breed them, we race them or show them, we enjoy and profit from them, and it ought 

to be our responsibility to look after them properly to the end of their lives. I submit that 

we must eliminate horse slaughter in order to retain the confidence of the public. 

 I am familiar with growing, industry-wide efforts in the Standardbred, 

Thoroughbred, and Quarter Horse fields to provide for horses that are past their 

usefulness. An Unwanted Horse Task Force has been set up at the American Horse 

Council within the past three months that will coordinate these efforts within the breeds 

so that unwanted horses can cease to be a national problem. To be frank, if the horse 

industry is deprived of the ability to discard and forget about a horse by sending it on that 

long trailer ride to slaughter, we will act far more efficiently to solve the problem by 

more appropriate means. Horses will cease to be disposable. 

Passage of H.R. 503 will enable Congress to accomplish two very laudable effects in our 

country: to stimulate the horse industry to look after its own interest more responsibly 

and efficiently, and to put an end to a known source of suffering imposed on what is, for 

so many Americans, a beloved animal. 

Thank you. 

 MR. STEARNS. Thank you. Mr. Koehler. 

MR. KOEHLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today to clear up some 

misconceptions about my industry. I am Dick Koehler, Vice President, 

Beltex Corporation, representing the country’s three USDA-regulated 

horse processing plants; two are in Texas and one in Illinois. The horse 

processing industry is a victim of a massive misinformation campaign 

waged by animal rights activists, so we are pleased to have the 

opportunity to set the record straight and testify before this committee. 

 The three plants provide vital services that are integral to the 

Nation’s $40 billion horse industry. Academic research laboratories for 
133

the country’s leading veterinarian research programs, including Texas 

A&M, Oklahoma State University, University of Illinois, Southern 

Illinois University, as examples, would not be able to continue research 

for many veterinarians like Dr. Hogan, who would need this background 

to continue their education. The only source of USDA-inspected equine 

protein for American zoos for the lions, tigers, bears, and birds of prey 

come from the horse processing plants. Leading source of equine 

pericardium for human heart surgery comes from the horse processing 

plants. 

 The essential role of horse processing, which sets the baseline value 

for horses for the U.S. horse market by providing a service of choice to 

those horse owners and it is a matter of choice. If you don’t wish to 

bring your horse to slaughter or have your horse slaughtered, I honor 

that. If you wish to do that, I believe you should have the choice to do 

that with your property. 

 Contrary to animal rights groups’ misrepresentations, the horse 

processing industry operates as follows: independent, not company 

buyers, purchase rejected and unwanted lower value horses from auction; 

that is after they go through the group that they would consider a 

recreational horse. That is a horse that they are going to move forward, 

try to sell at a profit, and that is their business. But the lower value 

horse, the horse that is unwanted because of its temperament, its physical 

attributes, or other issues, will probably come to slaughter. That is the 

unwanted of the unwanted. 

 Horses are transported according to humane transport laws approved 

by Congress and advocated by proponents of H.R. 503. There is a long 

list of rules and regulations for the transportation of horses only to 

slaughter. It is not a horse transportation act, it is a horse transportation 

to slaughter act. And in that act there are several guidelines for the 

condition of the animal to indicate the separation from aggressive 

animals to non-aggressive animals, so that when the animal arrives at the 

plant, it can be inspected by an APHIS representative who will then 

coordinate any type of issue that occurred during transportation. 

 Once that animal is received at the plant, they are fed and watered 

and housed in a covered holding area. They are inspected and their 

owner number, their sex, their breed, and other markings are documented 

in the State of Texas by a law enforcement representative to determine if 

they were stolen. And with due respect to Mr. Whitfield, I am not aware 

of any animal, after the 1997 act was passed by the State of Texas, where 

there was a stolen horse through Beltex. So I would appreciate 

information regarding that so I can follow up. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I will be glad to give you a copy of the case with 

Beltex specifically named. 
134

 MR. KOEHLER. Yes, sir. Thank you. Horses are inspected by 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service veterinarians to make sure 

that they are free from disease and contamination for human 

consumption because these horses are being brought for human 

consumption. They are healthy horses. They are the unwanted of the 

unwanted, but it doesn’t make them, by majority, unhealthy. There are 

some that are quite unhealthy and are condemned by the USDA 

veterinarian and they go straight to rendering. 

 Horses are humanely euthanized using the penetrating captive bolt 

method, which is mandated by Congress as a part of the Humane 

Handling Law recommended by the American Veterinary Medical 

Association and which meets the requirements of humane euthanasia set 

forth by the Humane Society of the United States. Plants have a legal 

obligation and a financial incentive to keep the horses calm and treat 

them humanely, because if the horse is under stress, it produces an 

inferior meat product. 

 The American meat, horse meat, is regarded as the best in the world. 

One of those reasons that it is regarded as the best in the world is the 

large amount of Federal and State regulation on this process. Included in 

that are the large amount of drug testing for antibiotics and other 

compounds which may be in the horse. The USDA sends forth a 

program to the veterinarian at each plant, tells him how many samples to 

draw, when to draw the samples, and what lab to send those samples to. 

In addition to that, the EU requires a much more extensive testing down 

to minute levels of various antibiotics that are sent to a lab of their choice 

also selected by the USDA veterinarian, the meat sample is, but it is sent 

to a lab of their choice, which is Maxim in Canada. 

 The passage of H.R. 503 would result in 60,000 to 90,000 extra 

horses, unwanted horses, flooding an inadequate and unregulated 

patchwork of adoption and rescue facilities. We ask that Congress vote 

no to this misguided legislation that would constitute unprecedented 

government intervention not founded on public health or food safety. 

We ask that Congress not eliminate an entire industry just because 

animal rights activists find the product of this law-abiding, taxpaying, 

legitimate business to be distasteful. Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Dick Koehler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DICK KOEHLER, VICE PRESIDENT, BELTEX CORPORATION

Summary of Testimony 

• I am Dick Koehler, Vice President, Beltex Corporation, representing the 

country’s three horse USDA-regulated horse processing plants. 

• The horse processing industry is the victim of a massive misinformation 

campaign waged by animal rights activists, so we are pleased to have the 

opportunity to set the record straight and testify before this committee. 
135

• The three plants provide five distinct and vital services that are integral to the 

nation’s $40 billion horse industry: 

- Academic research laboratories for the country’s leading veterinarian 

research programs. 

- Only source of USDA-inspected equine protein to America’s zoos 

- Leading source of equine pericardia for human heart surgery 

- Essential role of horse processing, which sets the baseline value of 

horses for the U.S. horse market 

- Preparation of euthanized horses for acceptance by U.S. rendering 

plants. 

• Contrary to animal rights groups’ misrepresentations, the horse processing 

industry operates as follows: 

- Independent buyers purchase low-value horses from auctions, which 

are unwanted because of temperament, physical attributes, behavioral 

- The horses are transported according to humane transport laws 

approved by Congress and advocated by the proponents of HR 503 

- The horses are fed and watered upon arrival and wait in a covered 

holding area 

- They are inspected and their owner number, sex, breed, and markings 

documented by a law enforcement officer to determine if they were 

stolen 

- The horses are inspected by a USDA Food Safety Inspection Service 

official to make sure they are free from disease and contamination 

- The horses are humanely euthanized using the penetrating captive 

bolt method, which is mandated by Congress as part of the Humane 

Handling Law, recommended by the American Veterinarian Medical 

Association, and which meets the requirements for humane 

euthanasia set forth by the Humane Society of the United States 

- The plants have a legal obligation and a financial incentive to keep 

the horses calm and treat them humanely because if the horse is under 

stress, it produces an inferior meat product 

• The passage of HR 503 would result in 60-90,000 extra horses flooding an 

inadequate, unregulated patchwork of adoption and rescue facilities. 

• We ask that Congress vote no to this misguided legislation that would 

constitute unprecedented government intervention. 

• We ask that Congress not eliminate an entire industry just because animal 

rights activists find the product of this law-abiding, tax-paying legitimate 

business to be distasteful. 

My name is Dick Koehler, Vice President of Beltex Corporation. Beltex 

Corporation is a Texas Corporation with European shareholders that operates a USDA 

and European Union - approved horse processing company located in Fort Worth, Texas. 

I am here today representing the 100-year-old U.S. horse processing industry, which 

would be eliminated in its entirety if this bill passes. 

 My business management background includes serving as a plant manager for 

Simeus Foods International, one of the country’s few minority-owned food processors, 

for 14 years. I was also the primary meat buyer for Armour Foods/ConAgra for 10 years. 

Since 1998, I have been honored to be part of Beltex, which not only provides a vital 

service to the $40 billion horse industry, we provide food to zoos, contribute to the local 

community through donations to charities and community groups and allow our plant to 

be used as an academic research facility to improve veterinarian care. 
136

I was eager to take the helm of the Beltex’s Ft. Worth plant. My background in 

business prepared me for the many challenges involved with the daily tasks of running a 

company. What I was not prepared for was the continuous barrage of insults, attacks, and 

lobbying efforts by the animal rights community – which has sparked legislation like 

H.R. 503. These groups are relentless in their lobbying, public relations, and advertising 

campaigns, in which they have spread inaccurate descriptions of our industry through 

thousands of internet, print, radio, and television stories worldwide. 

Furthermore, these groups have posted video footage on their Web sites, claiming it 

to be an accurate portrayal of the horse slaughter process. The truth is, this footage of 

cruelty and abuse does not reflect the modern USDA approved process we use here in the 

United States. I can promise you, irrefutably, that the video was also not filmed at the 

other two U.S, horse processing plants: Cavel, or Dallas Crown. Yet, we are the three 

companies that would be forced to shut down if you pass H.R. 503. 

Not only do I have to go to work each day and make the high level decisions 

required to run my business. I also must deal with a cruel, misguided misinformation 

campaign against our industry that has reached mammoth proportions. This campaign, 

waged by animal rights groups supporting H.R. 503, has reached the point that it directly 

affects the long term planning of the corporation. The continuous threat of being shut 

down has made it impossible for us to commit to long-term investments that would 

improve our facility and our operations -- a burden not faced by most small businesses in 

America. These investments would bring more jobs to our community and fuel the local 

economy. 

The goal of the animal rights groups that support this bad bill is best described by 

their own officials in their own words. In a Washington city paper article, Ingrid 

Newkirk, President and Founder of the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals stated, 

“Eating meat is primitive, barbaric, and arrogant.” And in 1996, the current Humane 

Society of the United States grassroots executive J.P. Goodwin said, “My goal is the 

abolition of all animal agriculture.” 

In fact, the Animal Liberation Front, which is the animal rights community’s branch 

devoted to violent and often criminal activity, is described by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) as a domestic terrorist organization. Just four days ago, the FBI 

announced that an ALF activist pled guilty to 54 counts of arson involving nine separate 

attacks. One of these attacks was on the Cavel West horse processing plant in Redmond, 

Oregon, which the animal activist burned to the ground in 1997. You can see that our 

concerns are not unfounded. 

Today is the first chance horse processing industry has had to describe accurately 

the vital services we provide without having a reporter or producer edit it. It is the first 

chance we have had to explain to the U.S. House of Representatives exactly what we do, 

and we sincerely thank you for this opportunity. 

Beltex, Cavel, and Dallas Crown are the only companies in America that provide 

five distinct and vital services that would be eliminated if this legislation passes. The 

mayor of Ft. Worth issued Beltex a special commendation for being a good corporate 

citizen. Beltex is a legal, tax-paying business that adheres to all applicable local, state, 

and federal regulations, as well as European Union regulations. 

Following are the five vital services we perform: 

• First, we serve as an academic research laboratory for Texas A&M, Oklahoma 

State University, Colorado State and other leading university veterinarian 

programs. By allowing students of veterinary medicine to visit our facilities and 

observe and examine large numbers of horses, we make possible the research 

that is used to enhance the quality of veterinary care. 

• Second, we are the only source of USDA-inspected horsemeat for U.S. zoos. 

More people visit zoos in America than all sporting events combined. A highprotein diet using horsemeat mimics what many zoo animals would have 
137

consumed in the wild. If the zoos cannot get meat from us, they will be forced 

to import horsemeat from other countries with less stringent safety and humane 

handling regulations. 

• Third, we are the leading U.S. source of equine pericardia used to replace the 

human membrane that surrounds and protects the heart. Equine pericardia are 

stronger and thinner than other animal pericardia, making them ideal for human 

heart surgery. Again, if the pericardia have to come from overseas, the 

harvesting of them will not be under the same watchful eye as it is here in the 

United States. 

• Fourth, we are an irreplaceable, interdependent part of the $40 billion horse 

industry, without which the market would fail, causing tens of thousands of 

horses to potentially become abandoned and abused. 

• Fifth, when rendering plants reject horses, we euthanize and prepare the horse 

to meet the specifications set forth by these plants. This is important because 

proponents of closing our plants indicate that euthanasia and pick-up by 

rendering plants as an alternative to our services, when, in fact, we are often an 

integral part of the rendering process.

Because the horse processing industry has been misrepresented in the past, I am 

providing the following modern-day, accurate and detailed description of our industry. 

Independent buyers purchase horses from auctions and other sources. They are 

looking for horses that can potentially be used as recreational or working animals. Some 

of these horses, because of temperament, physical attributes, or other reasons have no 

market value as a working or recreational animal. These “loose” animals, as they are 

called at auction, would be considered the bottom of the horse market, and the traders 

often sell them to one of the three processing plants. Most horse owners who take their 

animals to auctions realize that the animals may end up at processing plants. A portion of 

the animals we receive come from private individuals who deliver the animals to our 

plants. If horse owners do not want their animals to go to the processing plants, they 

should simply market their animals by private treaty. The choice now lies where it 

should – with the horse owner. This is why passage of H.R. 503 would constitute a clear 

violation of personal property rights. 

The processing plants are the only outlet where the lowest-value, unwanted horses 

end up. Unwanted horses fall into a wide range of categories. They are healthy and of 

various breeds, suffer from non-life-threatening disability or infirmity, fail to meet the 

owner's expectations, have behavioral problems, or are just plain mean or dangerous. 

 As the unwanted horses are transported to processing plants, it is important to note 

that horses bound for slaughter are the only livestock that have any federal humane 

treatment guidelines governing their transport. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health 

Safety Inspection Service (APHIS) enforces the "Commercial Transportation of Equines 

for Slaughter" (9 CFR 88). This regulation establishes the condition horses must be in 

before they can be transported by commercial livestock haulers to the plants. The Fitness 

to Travel Section of this law passed by Congress dictates that the horse must be able to 

bear weight on all four limbs, not be blind in both eyes, walk unassisted, be older than six 

months of age, and be not likely to give birth on the trip. 

This regulation also sets out how frequently the trucks must stop to feed and water 

the horses enroute to a packing plant. The regulation makes it unlawful to transport 

horses in double deck trailers after 2006. Ironically, this very law was championed by the 

animal rights groups who are now criticizing these regulations. HSUS claims that 

nursing foals and blind horses are being transported to slaughter, but this and their other 

transportation concerns have already been addressed by Congress and the law and 

regulations are already being enforced. 
138

This regulation also establishes criminal penalties for those that violate the rule. We 

encourage you to review Beltex’s record with APHIS instead of listening to unfounded 

allegations by our critics. In fact, renowned animal welfare expert Temple Granden 

conducted a published study on this topic. She found that it was the original horse 

owners, not transport conditions, which were responsible for the reported horse abuse and 

neglect of horses that arrived at slaughter plants. 

Upon the horses’ arrival at the plant, the USDA APHIS inspector verifies all 

shipping documents. An additional inspector, a law enforcement official acting as a brand 

inspector, documents the owner number, sex, breed and markings on each horse to make 

sure none of the horses have been reported stolen from their original owners. This 

mandatory brand inspection by law enforcement has been in effect since 1997, when 

Texas Agriculture Code #148 took effect. In all the years I have been at the company, 

the brand inspectors have never found that a horse that has been reported stolen. 

In order for meat to be exported to the European Union, a veterinary medical 

inspection officer from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food 

Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) must be present at the time of slaughter. This USDA 

veterinarian must perform an antimortum inspection of livestock in pens before 

processing in order to confirm that the animals comply with all USDA regulations as 

being fit for processing. This USDA veterinarian monitors the complete sequence of 

events involved in euthanasia and processing. The USDA veterinarian has the authority 

to retain and condemn any carcass that is considered suspect for contamination or 

diseased in some fashion that would make the introduction of the meat from that carcass 

into the human food chain unsafe. Since horses are handled under both United States and 

European Union regulations, horses undergo more stringent inspection procedures than 

are other animals slaughtered in the United States. 

Our plant has been designed specifically to put horses at ease. When horses are 

received, they are provided food and clean water in a clean and covered holding area. A 

captive bolt system is used to euthanize the horse, as is dictated by the Humane Handling 

Act approved by Congress. A captive bolt is not a stun gun; it is designed to produce 

instant brain death. In other words, we are bound by the Humane Handling Act to 

euthanize these horses in this specific way. Animal rights groups advocating H.R. 503 

know that we are following this law that binds us to perform veterinarian-supervised 

humane euthanasia, yet their materials and media interviews continue to claim that the 

process is not humane. If any of the independent inspectors or USDA veterinarians see 

any impropriety at any step along the way, immediate action is taken. 

Now that you have heard the accurate account of this carefully supervised process, 

there is no evidence that suggests a food safety or public health risk. We are required by 

law to adhere to the Humane Handling Act, the Humane Slaughter Act, the Meat 

Inspection Act, and additional regulations. Therefore, H.R. 503 would set the very 

dangerous precedent of the federal government banning a livestock product for reasons 

other than public health. 

I also want to point out that our legal obligation to treat animals humanely is 

matched by our own incentive: animals under duress make for a substandard product. 

That is why the owners of the horse processing plants use the humane euthanasia 

methods supported by the U.S. Congress and the American Veterinarian Medical 

Association. In fact, our method also meets the requirements for humane euthanasia set 

forth by HSUS, which says “We recommend for use only those methods that cause a 

rapid loss of consciousness and that cause minimal pain, distress, and suffering in the 

animal.” 

The quality of meat is dependent upon many factors, not the least of which is that an 

animal at the time of slaughter should be as calm as possible in order to reduce the 

animal's stress levels. A stressed animal can have chemical reactions in the muscles that 

result in meat that is substandard. 
139

This is why the unfounded claims of mistreatment are so ridiculous. The plants are 

not saying that difficult situations do not come up -- as they do with any animal -- but 

they are extremely rare and dealt with appropriately and immediately. Proponents of 

H.R. 503 inaccurately describe the slaughter process and continue to claim widespread 

mistreatment without evidence. Congress has already passed laws to assure that this is not 

the case. So, even if you believe that we are only driven by economics, note that we do

have a financial incentive to handle the animals in as quiet and non-stressful a fashion as 

possible in order to produce the best quality product. 

Since I have demonstrated Congress’s own vigilance and provided USDA evidence 

that incidents of mistreatment are not a legitimate concern, the only argument left is, and 

I quote our opposition: “U.S. businesses shouldn’t supply horse meat for other people to 

eat.” With all due respect, I think that’s a downright arrogant statement. The debate 

about which animals should and should not be eaten has been flourishing since before the 

Middle Ages and is likely to continue. It is extremely presumptuous of PETA and other 

anti-slaughter groups to claim the moral high ground across the globe regarding what is 

appropriate to eat, and not eat. If they really care about the humane treatment of animals, 

then let’s talk about it. I’m confident that our plant meets that test. But don’t try to get 

the U.S. government to shut down my legitimate business simply because you find our 

safe meat product distasteful. 

 Remember, we set the base price for the entire horse market...we’re it. You are 

looking at the bottom of the horse market. If you close us, the bottom falls out, and you 

have a nightmare situation. Even the Congressional Research Service has expressed 

concern that the challenge of caring for an extra 60,000 to 90,000 unwanted horses per 

year couldn’t be met by the rescue and adoption facilities in place today. 

Yet none of the animal rights groups supporting this bill have offered to address this 

problem. An Animal Liberation Front activist who now works at HSUS once set 7,000 

minks free from a farm in Oregon. Four thousand of those minks, mostly babies who 

weren’t weaned from their mothers, died as a result. Is that what HSUS wants to happen 

here? Just let the horses die of starvation? The Humane Society of the United States is a 

$111 MILLION DOLLAR operation. Let me repeat that. They are a $111 million dollar 

organization! They have more revenue than all three of the horse processing plants 

combined, and as you’ve seen, they have several wealthy celebrities working with them. 

Yet we called the one and only shelter funded by HSUS that takes horses, and there is No 

Vacancy. The largest animal rights group in the country isn’t willing to take one more 

horse, the shelter operator told us. Many other shelters are filled to capacity, as well. 

Now, imagine what will happen when we add 60,000 to 90,000 unwanted horses per 

year to this overburdened system. Actually – the numbers are trending upwards of 

90,000. Private owners will be able to absorb some of this infux, but the numbers are too 

staggering for that to even make a dent. Not only will eliminating processing be bad for 

horses, it will have a far-reaching negative ripple effect on the hundreds of businesses 

that make up our nation’s $40 BILLION horse industry -- from hay farmers and trailer 

manufacturers to feed stores and truckers. In fact, our plant recently was recognized for 

being the number one airfreight client at Dallas Fort Worth airport. There are clearly 

more jobs on the line than just the workers in our plants. 

Proponents of H.R. 503 have tried to polarize the two aspects of this bill -- the horse 

welfare part, which after this testimony they cannot lay claim to, and the economics, 

which they say are driving the mistreatment that they cannot document. 

What I am here to clarify once and for all is that you cannot separate these two 

elements. A horse that is worth less money is more prone to neglect. Period. A horse 

trader that does not have a baseline guarantee of what he can get for a horse is not going 

to take a chance on a low-value animal. So that animal is going to have to go back to the 

person who didn’t want it anymore, but they have no buyers and no options. How do you 
140

think most people are going to treat that unwanted animal? The animals – the horses that 

HR 503 advocates are trying to protect – will clearly suffer then. 

You can parade every celebrity known to man up here for as long as you want, and 

you can definitely get an eye full with some of them, but you cannot change the way the 

market works. You cannot change reality. Our industry exports one of the few 

agricultural products this country trades with Europe. To a businessman like me, the 

passage of H.R. 503 would be the big hand of government reaching into a private 

industry and destroying an entire segment -- a segment that is interdependent with every 

other aspect of the $40 billion horse market. 

H.R. 503 claims to fix a so-called “problem” that has been misrepresented time and 

time again, while our plants have complied with every new law and every new regulation. 

 We hope you will consider the facts before you take the broad sweeping step of 

closing my business and the businesses of my competitors. Beltex is owned by a 

company based in the Netherlands, and Dallas Crown and Cavel are Belgian-owned, but 

all plant management and other employees live in the United States. Because Mr. 

Whitfield, the proponent of this bill, has a Japanese-owned Toyota plant in his state, I 

know he can appreciate what foreign ownership can do when an overseas corporation is 

willing to make an investment in your community and provide jobs to local residents. 

H.R. 503 would send the message that Americans reject foreign investment in our 

country. 

 In closing, I am asking you not to support this misguided legislation. 

I am running a legal, tax-paying, humane business that is in compliance with every letter 

of every environmental and agriculture law on the books. Our industry is providing the 

underpinnings that allow our nation to safely and humanely manage its population of 9.2 

million horses. 

 We have a track record of compliance with stringent regulations -- the most 

stringent in the entire livestock industry. I have talked about the services these three 

plants provide: essential nutrient-rich feed for zoos, medical materials for cardiac 

procedures, a humane end-of life option for horses, and employment opportunities for 

local communities. I hope you can look beyond the emotional arguments made by 

proponents of this bill, and listen to the experts from AVMA and AAEP who really know 

what is best for horses. 

I hope you now realize that these plants provide a necessary service for the horse 

industry and for this country. 

I urge you to stop now, before the federal government takes the unprecedented step 

of shutting down a legitimate, safe, law-abiding, tax-paying business. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the horse processing industry. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank all of you and I will start with questions. Mr. 

Koehler, just a quick question. When the horse meat is sold in Asia or is 

sold in Europe, is it considered a gourmet meat or is it considered just a 

standard meat? 

 MR. KOEHLER. It is considered a protein source. 

 MR. STEARNS. Protein source, period. I was just curious what your 

reaction would be when someone indicated that one of the Kentucky 

Derby winners was slaughtered and then the French restaurant advertised 

it by saying “eat a champion.” I just wonder what your response would 

be to that. I think that is sort of an emotional argument, but you can see 

how that colors this whole thing and it is not necessarily you can ask, but 

I say to you and Dr. Beaver, I am going to come to you here, too, but this 
141

argument really sometimes comes down to the emotional and so you are 

going to have to perhaps address this and I think Mr. Goodlatte, the 

Congressman from Virginia, did not address that; Mr. Sweeney did, and I 

think that is an argument that you will have to take into account. 

 But Mr. Koehler, you mentioned a very good argument I would like 

Mr. Pickens to answer. In my hometown of Ocala there are about 465 

horse farms. The large horse farms support this bill; the small ones 

don’t. And when I go to talk to them, they all talk about private property 

rights and you probably know this better than anybody in this room, why 

should the Government, the United States government, tell private 

citizens what they can and cannot do with their own property? And so 

the question I have for you, as Mr. Koehler mentioned in his opening 

statement, just a small farm, they have a couple of horses. Some of them 

might have 30 horses. They own these horses, they paid for them. Why 

should the U.S. government tell them this isn’t a private property issue? 

 MR. PICKENS. I suppose it is a personal property question where 

they have the right to do what they want to do with the horse, and if they 

wanted to have the horse slaughtered, that that would be their right. 

 MR. STEARNS. Yes. 

 MR. PICKENS. I don’t think that most of the time these people know 

where these horses are going and don’t know they are being slaughtered. 

I think when you have killer buyers talking to them, they are telling them 

that they are going to take your horse and maybe you can’t afford to 

continue to pay for it, so we will allow somebody else to have it and we 

will put it in a nice home. If they had to sign an affidavit that said it is all 

right to slaughter my horse, I know what you are going to do, you are 

going to slaughter my horse and sign their name to it, I don’t think 

anybody would sign their name to it. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Pickens, in all deference to you, most of these 

people know these horses are being slaughtered and when I talk to them, 

they understand that they want to get paid for this horse and they want to 

have the right, and exercise their private property rights, to do with this 

horse what they want, and they feel this bill will deny them that, so that 

is just my observation. 

 Dr. Beaver, Congressman Sweeney talked about the emotional issue, 

which I think it is pretty important that you need to address. The horse, 

obviously, from the development of the frontier, has always been a 

symbol for America and Mr. Sweeney mentioned that we don’t slaughter 

bald eagles and eat them. And I think a lot of people feel a little bit 

squeamish when they hear a Kentucky winner advertised in a restaurant 

“eat a champion” and so I think I would like you to address this issue 

about the mystic qualities that maybe Mr. Williams had talked about, this 
142

horse; I mean, isn’t that something that Members should consider also, 

besides just the nuts and bolts of it? 

 DR. BEAVER. The emotional issue is certainly something that you, 

as Congressional Members, have to deal with in your home districts. 

That is something that we all recognize. But if the general public 

actually knew the suffering that horses that are not being cared for go 

through, you would find that the polls that say we are opposed to 

slaughter would dramatically change to the opposite and say we need to 

have humane care for these particular horses. 

 The average U.S. citizen is at least three generations off the farm. 

Many people in this country do not even know, have not touched any 

kind of livestock. They are probably more familiar with horses, but they 

get their information about animals from shows like Bambi, from Animal 

Planet, from information off the Internet rather than from having lived 

and worked with these particular animals. So the concern about emotion 

is very real, but the concern about humane care is even greater. 

 MR. STEARNS. One last question and I will let you answer this, Dr. 

Corey, and you can bring in your other comments. Mr. Whitfield had 

mentioned that it is a concern of a lot of Members that the Federal 

government is going to have to pay for the caring of these animals and he 

pointed out that there are a lot of retirement facilities that exist in the 

United States; they have the capacity to absorb these, I don’t know, 

80,000, 60,000, 80,000, 90,000 horses. 

 I guess the question is how many equine retirement facilities are 

there in the United States today, what is their total capacity, and will they 

be able and will there be enough generosity in the American horse 

industry to pay for the caring of these animals through that whole 

extensive time? And I think what is on any member’s mind, no matter 

how you feel on this issue, is the Federal government going to have to 

come in and bail us out? I have heard quotes as much as $250 million a 

year that the Federal government is going to have to pay to cover all this, 

so I guess if you can clear up the number of facilities, the capacity and 

what you expect in the future if this bill is passed. 

 DR. COREY. Well, I will try. I am not sure of the exact number of 

rescue and retirement facilities in the country. I have heard numbers all 

over the place, but I have heard that there are approximately 6,000 horses 

that right now are in sanctuaries or rescue and retirement facilities. We 

figure that we will have to have an additional 2,700 facilities to cover 

about 90,000 horses. The cost per year, roughly, is $1,800 for minimal 

care, feed and water, veterinary care, nothing extensive on top of that. 

So we are looking at anywhere from $120-$130 million per year and that 

is compounded each year because these horses are going to live and they 

are not going to die. 
143

 MR. STEARNS. That just goes on and on. 

 DR. COREY. And goes on and on. 

 MR. STEARNS. And with inflation, it could be a lot higher. 

 DR. COREY. Absolutely. 

 DR. HOGAN. Can I make a comment? 

 MR. STEARNS. Sure. Ms. Hogan. 

 DR. HOGAN. I think that is a little bit too simplistic to assume that 

every year there is going to be 80,000 or 90,000 horses that are just left 

standing out there to starve to death. I own horses, I breed horses, I take 

responsibility for my horses. Ninety-nine percent of the horses that are 

owned in this country are owned by responsible horse owners. The 

60,000 to 90,000 horses we are talking about represent 1 percent of the 

horse population. 

 Are we going to pay for all of these people that, this 1 percent of the 

population that is not going to take care of their horses? We are just 

removing one option for them, that slaughter is not an option. You can 

kill your horse if you want to, but you cannot ship it to slaughter. You 

can render it, you can euthanize it, you can bury the carcass, there are a 

number of options for you. We are just removing one that will eliminate 

what we believe to be a cruel practice that is in existence. 

 MR. STEARNS. My time is expired. Do you want to finish up, Dr. 

Corey? 

 DR. COREY. Dr. Hogan is in a very exclusive practice and if you get 

across the country, they are not all exclusive practices such as hers. And 

if you get out in reality, in a lot of the veterinary practices, a lot of horse 

owners consider $200,000 to care for a horse a lot of money and I can 

tell you that when it comes down to feeding that horse or feeding your 

kids, what are they going to do? They are going to feed their horse. 

 MR. STEARNS. Yes. All right, my time is expired. Ms. 

Schakowsky. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. I have to tell you that listening to this debate, I 

would say that the opponents of this legislation are presenting a picture 

that almost want me to call them the Humane Society, an organization 

that was actually discredited, Mr. Koehler, in your testimony. We are 

talking about a for-profit business here, right? People who are 

slaughtering horses to sell and make money. 

 MR. KOEHLER. Yes. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. And I am looking at the five vital 

services that you say are performed and I wanted to ask the proponents 

of the bill whether or not this is the only way that these goals can be met. 

They say they, one, serve as an academic research laboratory for various, 

Texas A&M, et. cetera, and students can visit their facilities and observe 

a large number of horses; makes research possible. Second, they are the 
144

only source of USDA-inspected horse meat for U.S. zoos, so the question 

is could we feed zoo animals in some other way? 

 Third, we are the leading source of equine pericardia, used to replace 

the human membrane that surrounds and protects the heart. Do we need 

this industry in order to meet that goal? Fourth, we are an irreplaceable, 

interdependent part of the horse industry and without the market, without 

which the market would fail causing tens of thousands of horses to 

potentially become abandoned and abused. So in other words, this is 

protecting horses because otherwise they would be abandoned and 

abused. 

 And fifth, I don’t understand. It is about rendering and I don’t get it, 

but so these other four, I am wondering, Dr. Hogan or Mr. Williams or 

Mr. Pickens and Dr. Hogan, let me also say I thought you made a really 

good point that I thought of, too. If you make this argument about 

horses, you really could make that argument about cats and dogs. There 

really is a market internationally for people who eat cats and dogs. I 

can’t imagine. And it could be, potentially, a lucrative business, I 

presume. But we do distinguish among animals, we just do in this 

country. So Dr. Hogan, in terms of those laudable goals that they say 

they achieve-- 

 DR. HOGAN. I am sure that the most obvious is that it is a for-profit 

business, but as far as the other attributes listed for this industry, I know 

one thing about the equine pericardial tissue; it is considered inferior, so 

I don’t think that is the number one choice at all for pericardial tissue 

implants. And secondly, about the research. We are not saying that you 

cannot euthanize an animal. A gunshot to the head is far better than this 

slaughter process, but if you need research materials, we are not 

disputing that they are available, but it is not the slaughterhouse that is 

the ultimate supplier of these research materials. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Williams, you mentioned that there is such 

a thing as an Unwanted Horse Task Force that has been set up. I mean, 

are there other ways to more adequately address this issue? I am 

concerned about large numbers of unwanted and abandoned horses. 

 MR. WILLIAMS. Yes. The Unwanted Horse Task Force has been 

folded into the American Horse Council. It is getting started. These 

things can’t be achieved overnight. The first thing that has been done is 

communication. A website is being set up to give a Web presence to the 

organization. The task force has determined that education of owners 

and members of the industry is a high priority and that this is something 

that can be done centrally. Some other things have to be done in the 

localities where the rubber meets the road. 

 When these numbers are being thrown around, I would like to just 

point out that, for example, in 2002 the number of horses slaughtered 
145

was somewhere around 44,000; in 2005, 90,000. So that is 45,000 

horses, roughly, that didn’t get slaughtered in 2002. Where are they? 

Are they walking the streets today? No, it is not that simple and it is not 

good mathematics and it is not rational to say if we stop slaughtering 

90,000 horses from last year, they are going to be on our hands and 

another 90 and another 90. History shows it doesn’t work that way. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay, thank you. I yield back. 

 MR. STEARNS. The Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to have 

Mr. Pickens here talking about something besides the high price of oil. 

My first question, in Dr. Corey’s testimony, he has a list of 62 State and 

national organizations that oppose the bill and of those 62, 25 are 

specific organizations directed towards horses. Does anybody dispute 

that list? Any of the proponents of the bill? Does anybody dispute that 

the American Veterinary Association, the American Paint Horse 

Association, the American Quarter Horse Association, the Animal 

Welfare Council, Hooved Animal Rescue and Protection Society, 

Indiana Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, Kentucky 

Quarter Horse Association, Michigan Horse Council, Mid-America 

Horse Show Association, Missouri Equine Council, New Jersey Horse 

Council, New York State Horse Council, North Carolina Horse Council, 

Ohio Horse Council, Pacific Coast Quarter Horse, Palomino Breeders of 

America, Texas Horse Council, Utah Horse Council; it can go on and on. 

 And some organizations that are not animal specific, Professional 

Rodeo Cowboys Association. I mean, it can’t be purely economic that 

all these associations oppose the bill. 

 DR. HOGAN. May I comment? 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, ma’am. 

 DR. HOGAN. There certainly are some financial interests there; in 

some cases, a lot of financial interests. I would like to make a couple of 

points. I stated on a number of the AAEP and the AMVA. The AAEP is 

a membership of 7,200 or so veterinarians. The poll that was conducted 

in 2002, online survey of 3,000 veterinarians in which 640 responded. 

That is the survey that is commonly quoted. I think it is more of a 

leadership’s position. Also, the American Quarter Horse Association, 

this is their official latest magazine sent to their members. This is a 

quote from their magazine. “We should also say that issues concerning 

human consumption of horse meat are outside the scope of AQHA. 

Therefore, the Association takes no official position on this subject 

except to say that it is a personal, cultural, and social issue.” This is from 

their own monthly magazine sent to members. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Do you dispute that the American Quarter 

Horse Association opposes the bill? 
146

 DR. HOGAN. No. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am not saying that, I am just--what is in his 

testimony. 

 DR. HOGAN. I understand that, but I would like to say that a lot of 

those organizations-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Chairman, you didn’t start my clock and 

I’m at about the 2-minute mark. I have probably been going about-- 

 MR. STEARNS. We will let the Chairman work that out in his best 

fairness. 

 DR. HOGAN. A lot of those associations have taken a leadership 

position, but do not necessarily represent all of the members. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Dr. Beaver, you have talked to me 

about this several times when you were President of the American 

Veterinary Association. Do veterinarians take an oath similar to doctors 

that treat people about doing what is, you know, the Hippocratic Oath 

and things like that. Do you all have any kind of a similar oath to treat 

animals? 

 DR. BEAVER. Absolutely, yes, we do. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. And with the American Veterinary 

Association opposing this legislation, did you all have a substantial 

policy debate about that and talked about all the issues that have come 

out in this hearing before you took that position? 

 DR. BEAVER. This has been through several different committees 

and those committees make the recommendation that comes forward. 

The executive board talks about it and decides whether it should become 

the association’s position or not, so it has been through a lengthy process 

and has had a lot of input, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So would it be your assessment that in that 

debate with the veterinary association that the veterinarians like Dr. 

Hogan, who obviously have a heartfelt opposition, were their voices 

heard in the debate? Were they given input into the debate and allowed 

to participate in some of these policy discussions? 

 DR. BEAVER. There was a lot of information gathered from a lot of 

different sources, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. This is an open question. Is there any 

compromise possible on this? I mean, it seems to me to be a fine line 

between opposing the slaughter of horses but yet supporting euthanasia 

and all of the other avenues to what is commonly referred to as put down 

a horse. Could we get to something that everybody could agree upon? 

Dr. Corey. 

 DR. COREY. I definitely think there is always room to sit down at a 

table and talk about it. We, in fact, have never heard any of the problems 

that exist in transportation from anybody, so I sure think there is room to 
147

always sit down and talk about this; the AAEP is always willing. But I 

also would like to correct something. The AAEP has done not only one 

survey, but two surveys; our general membership survey last year. And 

we are strongly, well near 80 percent of our members are in favor of our 

position. This is sort of a democratic process. I see that not all of the 

Congressmen agree on this issue. Dr. Hogan and I don’t agree on this 

issue. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. The only issue we ever disagreed on. 

 DR. COREY. Uh-huh, I can tell. But at any rate, I do want you to 

know that we have surveyed our membership twice and we are very 

comfortable with our position. 

 DR. HOGAN. Just ask him how many members it was for the last 

survey. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Pickens, you wanted to make a comment? 

 MR. PICKENS. How do you compromise slaughter? I don’t know. I 

just don’t see how you get there, Mr. Chairman. Let us just go back to 

the facts and you know, I have testified a number of times here in 

Washington and always think I am on the right side of the issue and it is 

proven that most of the time I have been. And I think clearly I am on the 

right side of the issue here. And when I see foreign-owned-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Spoken like a true Texan. 

 MR. PICKENS. That is right. That is right. But foreign-owned and 

we don’t have--we have an employee of one of the plants from Ft. Worth 

and we are the owners in the deal. They are not here speaking for 

themselves. So we have, I am told, Belgian-owned plants killing 

American horses, sending them to France and Belgium and Japan. I just 

don’t get it. I don’t understand why we are the bad guys in the deal. 

Horses cannot be eaten in Texas or other parts of the United States and 

we are sending them off-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Nobody is saying that anybody is a bad guy. 

My point is I listened to what Dr. Hogan said and what Mr. Williams 

said. Dr. Hogan is a veterinarian and Mr. Williams trains animals and 

breed animals, breeds horses and I am trying to figure out if there is a 

moral difference between killing a horse one way versus in a slaughter 

facility. If it is done properly, regulated, as Dr. Beaver referred to, that is 

why I say is there a compromise possible, but maybe there is not. Maybe 

there are occasions where things are so black and white that you can’t 

compromise. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, so I appreciate the 

courtesy. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Gonzalez. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

probably missing something here because I think there are a couple of 

issues out here, regardless of the setting, whether it is a rendering plant 
148

or a slaughterhouse, euthanasia, the humane treatment of horses should 

be paramount. That is where we are today. I am not sure that is the real 

issue here. I am not sure that this bill has such specifics that it is going to 

remedy all of those problems, but I do know what this bill addresses. 

 It has been established, I believe, that it is socially unacceptable in 

the United States to raise horses for the purpose of slaughtering them for 

human consumption. I think that is a given. And we will and the 

Government will, at every level of government, attempt to regulate 

human behavior that is not socially acceptable. So Mr. Koehler, yes, 

private property rights are very important, but the Government, every 

level of government, dictates to you what is socially acceptable, your 

personal behavior, what is acceptable or not; what you do with your 

private property, personal, real and so on, land use, because we are a 

Nation and we have certain mores and values. 

 One of them is how we look at and treat a particular animal, in this 

case, a horse, which is not raised with the intention of it being food stock 

and that is, I think, the real issue here. I think, at the end of this process, 

it is the consumption of horse meat, human consumption, that is 

objectionable. We are trying to address that here. We have three 

foreign-owned entities that, obviously, provide this particular service and 

that is kind of a curious thing is why we wouldn’t have an American 

enterprise doing this if it is so profitable and acceptable. So let us just 

say we can govern this and we will, and we do it in other arenas. 

 But I do believe this, and I am assuming some things here and any of 

the witnesses can just raise your hand and I will recognize you to 

respond. Is there a difference in the type of animal that you find in a 

rendering plant and that which you find in the slaughterhouse for 

eventual human consumption of the meat in a foreign country? I have 

been told, informed, that it is a younger, more healthy specimen of a 

horse that you find at the slaughterhouse that is destined for human 

consumption. Is that or is that not a fact? 

 DR. HOGAN. Yes, it is. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Okay, Dr. Hogan. 

 DR. HOGAN. You are correct. Yes, the majority of the animals in 

the slaughterhouse are younger and healthy and in very good shape. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. All right. Now, I am from Texas, not that I was 

ever a rancher, but I would assume that most of the cattle being raised 

and that are being slaughtered for human consumption are not ill, old, 

infirmed, and so on, correct? 

 DR. HOGAN. Right. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. The same logic would extend to a horse, wouldn’t 

it? What I am getting at is that I believe the slaughtering of healthy 

animals is encouraged by the fact that this is the kind of horse meat that 
149

would be at a premium price for human consumption, again, in a foreign 

land. And Mr. Koehler, am I wrong in that assumption or is it the same 

animal at these slaughterhouses that you would find at the rendering 

plants? 

 MR. KOEHLER. I think it is a misconception. The animals that come 

by majority for slaughter are healthy because they are inspected by a 

USDA veterinarian for, in fact, that it is meat that is going into the 

human food chain. So it will be healthy meat, by a majority; not all. He 

will condemn some. He will reject others. But the majority is that yes, 

they are going to be healthy animals, but these are the unwanted healthy 

animals. This is not a group of animals that was selected specifically for 

this. Let me give you an example. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. But you know, Mr. Koehler, because I only have 

like 1 minute, but if you give these individuals an available avenue, a 

way to dispose of a healthy animal, doesn’t that basically allow them the 

luxury of being irresponsible horse owners? If they didn’t have that 

available slaughterhouse method of disposing of an animal that they no 

longer care for and make a few dollars on or whatever, are you 

accommodating irresponsible ownership? 

 MR. KOEHLER. Let me quote Tim Grenlan, who said that “The 

damage, the poor condition of a horse to slaughter happened long before 

that horse ever went to slaughter,” and I think that would be true for 

those animals that would be rejected or emancipated. Yes, there are laws 

on the books that should be addressed and that should be taken care of, 

but by and large, that is not we are talking about here. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Koehler. My time is up, but Mr. 

Chairman, if you would give Dr. Corey an opportunity to respond and 

Dr. Corey, thank you. 

 MR. STEARNS. Sure. 

 DR. COREY. I would just like to comment. By banning slaughter, it 

is probably not going to eliminate the process of slaughter. These horses 

will go to another location. A large majority of them will end up going 

to Canada or Mexico and probably the regulations are not near as 

stringent as they are at a USDA regulated facility here in the United 

States. So I don’t think by eliminating this process here in the United 

States we are going to do an awful lot. 

 MR. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentlelady 

from California, Ms. Bono. 

 MS. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of our 

witnesses. It has been very informative and interesting. Mr. Pickens, 

since you are always right on the issues and since we agree on this one, 

my first question is for you and can you speak a little bit more about the 

economics of this business and about the transfer of not only the 
150

horsemeat, but how do the finances work here and do these entities pay 

solid good American tax dollars? 

 MR. PICKENS. I am not quite sure, but I want to respond to the 

question, but no, you are not talking to an expert. I talked to the mayor 

of Kaufman where the Crown plant is located and I believe their 

revenues were $12 million last year and the unbelievable part was that 

she told me that the taxes paid to Kaufman were $5 dollars. 

 MS. BONO. Thank you. 

 MR. PICKENS. And oh, let me speak just for a second. When we talk 

here about the slaughter and how we dispose of horses at a certain time 

of their lives and all and what is the most humane way, we have 

completely avoided what you just asked. This is all about making 

money, is what it is, because they kill here to make money in the United 

States for people that live in Europe and somehow, we keep avoiding 

that. There are some of their fees, I am told that are, when these animals 

are killed here in the United States and I think that ought to be addressed, 

too. 

 MS. BONO. Thank you. I am going to reclaim my time because it 

goes so quickly. Is it Mr. Koehler or Koehler? 

 MR. KOEHLER. Koehler. 

 MS. BONO. Koehler? Thank you. Quick question. Why don’t you, 

or why doesn’t your company that you work for, place in the American 

marketplace of human consumption of horse? 

 MR. KOEHLER. I didn’t understand the question. 

 MS. BONO. Well, the question is one that you should actually know 

the answer. There is no market here in America because we don’t 

support the consumption of horsemeat, so that, in itself, I think says the 

American people don’t support the very notion of it, but if this is about 

money and if it is about markets, I mean, Dr. Beaver, I have a little 

question and I am sure one of you is certain this question, this is going to 

come up. Do you support the same sort of euthanasia for dogs and cats? 

 DR. BEAVER. The panel’s report indicates that barbiturates are the 

preferred method for dogs and cats, there are different-- 

 MS. BONO. Okay, yes or no. I am sorry. I have got 2 minutes. So 

no, you do not support the bolt in the head form of euthanasia? 

 DR. BEAVER. Each species has its own unique forms of euthanasia 

in many cases. 

 MS. BONO. So the biology of a dog or cat to either veterinarian or 

any veterinarian on the panel, the biology is different for a dog or cat but 

you don’t support that. 

 DR. BEAVER. It has more to do with-- 
151

 MS. BONO. Why don’t we have--and again, this is going to be the 

emotional question, probably, of the day. Then why aren’t we doing the 

same thing with dogs in the Korean market? 

 DR. BEAVER. We have an oversupply of dogs and cats. We don’t 

want to create an oversupply of horses. 

 MS. BONO. But by creating a marketplace in France and Belgium, 

we are creating a marketplace. I think that sort of contradicts yourself. 

 DR. BEAVER. As I said, the AVMA is concerned about the humane 

care of the horse, not what happens to the tissue other than protecting the 

environment after the horse has been euthanized. 

 MS. BONO. Dr. Hogan, I am very interested to say that you made an 

unannounced visit to the slaughterhouse and can you just go on a little bit 

more about what you witnessed that you think we should know? 

 DR. HOGAN. Well, it was about 10 years ago. I really wasn’t aware 

of slaughter, to tell you the truth. I just was a resident at Texas A&M. I 

went to the slaughter plant just to collect some legs for a project and so I 

was unannounced and really, it wasn’t a hot button issue at the time so 

they didn’t mind you coming. But I just was appalled at the way the 

animals were treated. They are very aware of things. They are not like 

cattle or chickens, they could see what was going on. They were 

intelligent about it, they were in a long line next to each other, processed 

through this line and then there was a stun gun of some type; I am not 

sure if it was a penetrating bolt at the time. But the people that worked 

there were just abusive to the animals. I am sure that has been addressed, 

but it was my only exposure, at that time, to slaughter and I was just 

appalled at the whole thing. Horses are not the same type of animal that 

is raised as a food animal. They are not raised in a herd environment, 

that they are put in this kind of environment. They are in there with 

stallions, geldings, mares, they are just-- 

 MS. BONO. Why is it different; we have moved to a commercial 

marketplace for buffalo meat? Can you explain the difference a little bit 

between the buffalo, then, from the horse? 

 DR. HOGAN. Well, there certainly is a different level of intelligence, 

but they are not in a bonding type situation with humans. The buffalo 

and cattle are raised in manners that they learn to follow each other. 

They learn to get along in herds. They learn to eat out of the same feed 

trough. It doesn’t happen that way with horses. There is a pecking 

order, there is a hierarchy. They fight, they hurt themselves, they hurt 

each other. It is a different type of situation. They are treated the same 

way as cattle in the current makeup of a slaughterhouse. 

 MS. BONO. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you very much. 
152

 MR. STEARNS. Thank you. The gentleman from New Hampshire, 

Mr. Bass. 

 MR. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would assume that because 

the definition here on page three of the bill says that “the movement, 

showing, exhibition, or sale of sore horses in interstate commerce” and 

other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption. That is a 

finding. I guess my question is what would--there is a market for horse 

meat for zoos and other things. Would the passage of this bill affect that 

market? Would somebody like to address that? Would zoos still be able 

to get the meat they need to feed their animals? 

 MR. KOEHLER. Well, let me address that. From the standpoint of 

the USDA-inspected equine meat, no, because that part of the process 

alone will not sustain the plant. As much as in the cattle industry, you 

have to sell all parts of the animal to make it profitable, so in order to do 

that, you would have to have all parts of that to function, so selling one 

part of it would not make the business functional. And in connection 

with that, I don’t know what is wrong with foreign investment. As a 

businessman, I am here for profit. 

 MR. BASS. Okay, I am not asking about foreign investment. Mr. 

Williams, do you have a comment? 

 MR. WILLIAMS. With respect to the zoo question, some of the 

proponents checked with the Washington Zoo. They are down to about 5 

percent needing horse meat and they say they are phasing it out because 

it produces a bad reaction among the public when they learn that they are 

feeding horse meat. 

 MR. BASS. Do you have an alternative for horse meat? 

 DR. HOGAN. Yes, there is plenty of-- 

 MR. BASS. Okay. 

 DR. HOGAN. I mean, horse meat is a wonderful protein source, but 

so is buffalo, cow, pork. 

 MR. BASS. Where do they get the buffalo? 

 DR. HOGAN. Well, that is raised commercially, as well. 

 MR. BASS. What about the issue of transport across boundaries. 

What would there be to prevent an auction house being set up across the 

border somewhere; Mr. Koehler would set up his slaughterhouse across 

the border and you--I know the bill says you can’t ship for purposes of 

slaughter, but if you shipped it for purposes of sale in Canada or Mexico 

or some other country that allowed for it, what would stop, if this bill 

were to pass? Dr. Corey. 

 DR. COREY. Well, veterinarians can and do this daily and regularly. 

We send horses to Canada for shows, for showing purposes, for riding 

events. Those horses can end up going there for that, end up staying and 
153

all of a sudden something happens to them and they end up going down 

that pipeline. Very simple. It won’t stop a Ferdinand from happening. 

 MR. BASS. Anybody else want to comment on that? Dr. Beaver. 

 DR. BEAVER. There has to be teeth in the regulation to be sure that 

they would be stopped. If the regulations are in place, but not enforced, 

it will not help the horse. 

 MR. BASS. Well, if a horse is shipped to an auction house or a point 

of sale outside the United States, this bill passes, is shipped to a point of 

sale outside the United States and there were, as I understand, more than 

10,000; 10,000 to 15,000 horses that have been shipped out of the 

country. What is to stop Mr. Koehler from simply moving his company 

from Texas a few hundred miles south to Mexico, having a sale made 

down there and just continuing with the practice? Would any of the 

proponents of the bill wish to address that issue? Are you a proponent of 

the bill? 

 MR. WILLIAMS. I am. 

 MR. BASS. Okay, go ahead. 

 MR. WILLIAMS. The language, the shipping, transporting, moving, 

delivering, receiving and so forth of any horse or other equine to be 

slaughtered for human consumption, I think, clearly covers that case and 

at least, based on instincts from my old days as a prosecutor, if I had an 

individual doing this in the United States, pointing towards Canada or 

Mexico, as soon as he let out the clutch on the truck and he started to 

move, he was transporting and I would be on him. 

 MR. BASS. So your answer is the prohibition on the transportation 

alone would stop, would limit, if not prohibit, any transport across or 

even if the point of sale wasn’t clearly defined? 

 MR. WILLIAMS. Yes, because it would be easy enough to establish 

by other means what the purposes and intent of the perpetrator was. 

 MR. BASS. How would the passage of this bill prevent another 

Ferdinand event from occurring? It is my understanding--the counsel 

here just told me a second ago that Ferdinand was actually sold abroad 

for breeding and then wound up on a table, is that true? 

 MR. WILLIAMS. That is true. But this would not stop that. You still 

got these horses that are going to go to Canada or Mexico or Japan. It 

doesn’t make any difference. They will still end up going there and I 

would prefer to have these horses processed in the United States where 

we have got the USDA governing these processing plants. 

 MR. KOEHLER. Representative, may I also comment on that? In 

addition to that, I see a lot more horses coming from some of the western 

States, Utah, Arizona, close to California. The implication of that could 

be that horses that are moving, also, and something like you are talking 
154

about, out of the country thing across borders. I don’t have any proof of 

that, just I see a larger number coming from that area. 

 MR. BASS. I know that the proponents of the bill believe that horses 

are not the same as cows, they are not livestock. Do the opponents, do 

any of the three of you who are appearing here as opponents of the bill 

perceive any difference in the characterization of a horse as livestock 

different from a cow, a chicken, or a pig for purposes of its treatment at 

the end of its life? 

 DR. BEAVER. The AMVA’S concern is for humane care of any 

species. Each species, as a behaviorist, is recognized as having its own 

unique features, both physiology, anatomy behavior. As long as it is 

treated humanely and both in life and in death, the resulting handling of 

the tissue afterwards is a totally separate subject. 

 MR. BASS. Okay. 

 DR. BEAVER. Currently, in the world, there are about 4.7 million 

horses eaten or slaughtered for human consumption around the world 

now. I guess part of the concern is what are we, as the United States, 

going to be dictating what the world is to eat and then if we choose to do 

that, who is next? Are we going to then dictate what we can also eat? 

 MR. BASS. All right. Yes, sir. Please be brief. 

 DR. COREY. I will be brief. Dr. Hogan, I am not sure where she 

became an expert on the intelligence of animals, because as far as I am 

concerned, I am a cattle rancher in Oregon and I think cattle are awful 

smart at times. And so it is kind of hard to evaluate which one is a lot 

more intelligent than the other one. 

 MR. BASS. Okay, fair enough. I would like to just conclude--yes, 

sir. 

 MR. PICKENS. France and Belgium do not allow the killing, the 

slaughter of horses, so they have to get their horse meat from us. 

 MR. BASS. All right. I just want to conclude, if I could. I have 

determined that there are basically four reasons why the proponents of 

this bill want it to pass. Number one, owners unknowingly sell their 

horses not understanding that they will be slaughtered. Two, stolen 

horses are sometimes slaughtered. Three, inhumane treatment between 

the auction house and the slaughterhouse exists in both transportation 

and the killing technique; and four, the sale of meat for human 

consumption is distasteful. Do any of the proponents of the bill have 

anything to add? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman and by unanimous consent, we 

have finished the members’ questioning period, unless Ms. Bono wishes 

any additional time? 

 MS. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be a great 

time for Mr. Whitfield to-- 
155

 MR. STEARNS. Okay, so by unanimous consent, I recognize the 

gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes, approximately. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, and I hope you will be as generous 

with me as Chairman Goodlatte. I was reading some articles the other 

day about a paper, 10 years ago, actually 20 years ago, 1986 and this was 

the mayor of Kaufman, Texas talking to Dallas Crown Packing Company 

officers. “Quite frankly, we don’t want you here.” And I know that in 

the city of Kaufman that Dallas Crown has had 31 wastewater violations 

in the last couple of years. The city council and the zoning board 

authority has voted to shut the plant down on September 30, 2006. 

 And in the process of doing that, to meet some requirements of 

Texas law, they had to subpoena the tax records of Dallas Crown, and in 

those tax records they found, as Mr. Pickens referred to, that on $12 

million of revenue they paid $5 in Federal income tax and they had made 

an $80,000 tax estimate payment and they received a $79,995 refund. 

 So in that instance, you have got a plant that the majority of people 

in that community don’t want. Seventy-seven percent of the people in 

Texas, in a poll, said they don’t approve slaughter. They are violating 

wastewater and environmental laws. And the judge has said in order to 

enforce 149--and because of Federal preemption and because of the 

interstate commerce clause, that the only entity that can shut these 

slaughterhouses down is the Federal government. 

 Now, Mr. Koehler, I know you are not Dallas Crown, but why do 

you even want to do business in a State in which there is such 

overwhelming sentiment against what you are doing? 

 MR. KOEHLER. Well, Mr. Whitfield, for one thing, on the lawsuit in 

Federal court, the Federal judge found, his number one finding was that 

the Texas law had already been repealed, so it was-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. But he didn’t base it on that. He based it on the 

Interstate Commerce Act and the Meat Packing Act of 1906 in Federal 

preemption and he never made a formal finding on that point. 

 MR. KOEHLER. No, sir, he didn’t. It is my understanding he found it 

was on three points and we won on all three points. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And I might say that he talked about the fact that 

you are paying $5 for every horse slaughtered, $3 to the Cattlemen’s 

Association and $2 to Texas A&M Extension Service and the purpose of 

that is try to identify, because in his opinion he talks specifically about 

the number of stolen horses that were being slaughtered in Texas at the 

two plants. 

 And the reason that they were going to go to this $5 was to try to 

come up with a plan to identify stolen horses. And you said, in your 

testimony, you did not identify any horses that had been stolen and in the 

San Antonio newspaper that I was referring to, which I have a copy of 
156

here, and talking to the people at Texas A&M and the Southwestern 

Cattle Association, they said they have not found any horses that had 

been stolen being slaughtered. 

 Now, do you honestly believe that you are not slaughtering any 

stolen horses in your plant? 

 MR. KOEHLER. To my knowledge, that is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Do you have a database of stolen horses? 

 MR. KOEHLER. Do I have a database? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. A database. 

 MR. KOEHLER. I have a database of horses that are received for 

slaughter. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Do you have a database of stolen horses? 

 MR. KOEHLER. If you mean information from various horse 

associations and individual owners that are given to the Texas 

Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, that is a lot to say, yes, sir. 

They are given to the inspector so he is aware of what animals are-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And does he get 80 cents a head? 

 MR. KOEHLER. Sir? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. The brand inspector, does he get 80 cents per head 

for a horse that goes through the process? 

 MR. KOEHLER. The brand inspector is paid by the Texas 

Southwestern Cattle Raisers. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. That you pay. You pay for that, though, right? 

 MR. KOEHLER. I pay to the State of--mandated by the State of 

Texas, part of it to the Texas-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yes, yes. 

 MR. KOEHLER. Which the State of Texas chose that brand inspector 

and-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I don’t think that anyone would--I mean, we have 

got--these were just from the last month, but these are articles around the 

country on horses stolen and taken to slaughter. I think one of the things 

that disturbs a lot of people is that fact. Second of all, Dr. Beaver, I 

noticed that you are a small animal specialist, it is my understanding. 

When you go to the website, it talks about your involvement with dogs, 

in particular, and that is your specialty. 

 DR. BEAVER. My academic housing is in the department of small 

animal clinical sciences, although animal behavior is my specialty area, 

so I work in both the large animal and small animal clinics. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, I was a little bit shocked, truthfully, that--

and I think Dr. Corey and Dr. Beaver, you talked about the Federal 

government’s responsibility if you stop the slaughterhouse, the Federal 

government has got to be responsible for these horses that won’t be 

slaughtered and I would just ask you; I know I read some of your 
157

literature on the responsibility of dog owners and small pet owners and 

their personal responsibility. Don’t the breeders of these horses, 

particularly the quarter horse, which is the leading entity opposing this 

bill, their leadership, don’t they have any responsibility on their prolific 

breeding that they are doing? 

 DR. BEAVER. The majority of horses in the United States are not 

necessarily purebred horses. They are often mixed breed horses. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, they said last year they had 144,000 foals of 

Texas quarter horse that were registered. 

 DR. BEAVER. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Do they have any responsibility on that number of 

horses? 

 DR. BEAVER. All horse owners have a responsibility for their own 

horses. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So why should the Government take over 

responsibility if we stop the slaughterhouses? 

 DR. BEAVER. For the same reason that we have dogs and cats that 

are running loose. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. The Government doesn’t take over that, does it? 

 DR. BEAVER. State-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. No, local groups raise money and they take care of 

that. 

 DR. BEAVER. No, State and local governments-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Not in Kentucky, that is not the case. Not in 

Kentucky. Yes, sir? 

 DR. COREY. Well, you know, I disagree with you a little bit. I think 

it is an owner’s responsibility. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 DR. COREY. But you also have to understand-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, why should they be breeding them? 

 DR. COREY. The care of horses in eastern Oregon, it will run up to 

$2,000 and there are a lot of places that these horses are not of the value 

of a lot of thoroughbreds and the thoroughbred owners can definitely 

take care of-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Why are the quarter horses breeding so many 

horses, 144,000 a year? Why are they doing it? 

 DR. COREY. I guess it is free trade. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Oh, so you are making the argument that we have 

all these unwanted horses and that yet the quarter horse people are not 

taking any responsibility for their breeding practices. 

 DR. COREY. You have to ask the Quarter Horse Association that, but 

the point is that it is very expensive for some people to take care of their 

horses. 
158

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, why do they have horses, then, if they can’t 

take care of them? 

 DR. COREY. I think some people fall upon hard times, when they 

start out with horses, you can’t avoid that. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And you know when you go to an auction house 

like in New Holland, Pennsylvania, if you are not in the business, there 

isn’t any disclaimer there, there is no notice about killer buyers being 

present. If I take a cattle to an auction, I know that that animal is going 

to end up being slaughtered, but if I have some horses and I am not in the 

real business and I go, I take a horse to auction, I don’t necessarily know 

that that animal is going to be slaughtered and yet you have this--in fact, 

I have found some websites; you have Beltex listed, Dallas Crown listed, 

you have a long list of independent contractors, so-called killer buyers, 

running around the country gathering horses, one way or the other, for 

them. 

 DR. COREY. Well, I would sure disagree with you. In our area of the 

country, and most veterinarians that I know, these horses, when they 

leave a clinic and they have got something wrong, maybe they are 

permanently crippled, they are lame and they feel like they need to get a 

little value out of that horse, instead of feeding it, they know exactly 

where these horses are going. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Are you making the argument that the only horses 

slaughtered are those that have some defect or-- 

 DR. COREY. No, I think you will see a large range of horses. You 

will see behavioral problems. You will see crippled horses, non-life 

threatening injuries. Sure, you will see geriatric horses. You see many. 

I am just kind of curious. You mention these polls, these exit polls. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. No, not exit polls. It was done by--Fasig Tipton 

actually paid for it, which is the second largest auction house in the 

country and it was done in Texas and I can-- 

 DR. COREY. Were they all horse owners and the horse public that 

know horses and know the welfare-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. It was the general public. 

 DR. COREY. A lot of the general public does not know equine. 

 MR. KOEHLER. Mr. Whitfield, may I address your question, also? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

 MR. KOEHLER. In the State of Texas, when an animal is brought to 

the auction, that owner is given a choice that he can either have a 

cognizance test done or that animal must come to slaughter. So those 

people that bring their animals to auction will-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. But that is not the case in other parts of the 

country. 
159

 MR. KOEHLER. In many States it is, but I can speak directly about 

Texas. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, Mr. Chairman, you have been very kind. I 

have already gone 5 minutes over, so thank you. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. Mr. Corey. 

 DR. COREY. I just have one question for Mr. Whitfield. Are you 

suggesting that we control the breeding of horses? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. If you are going to make the argument that we 

have too many unwanted horses. Now, 12 years ago, 329,000 horses, 

approximately, were slaughtered in America and now we are down to 

around 85,000 and I haven’t read anything, I haven’t seen any scientific 

studies or anything else about more unwanted horses than can be taken 

care of. So if we have gone from 329 to 85, I don’t buy the argument. 

Going from 85 to zero, the whole country would be covered up with 

horses that cannot be taken care of. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Corey, I don’t know if you can win with 

Members of Congress here because we usually get the last word in so let 

me just close here and just say I am very appreciative that we had the 

opportunity to have this hearing. I know folks on both sides wanted to 

have the opportunity to have the full facts out and I think we have done 

that, so with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

○