```

[House Report 109-617]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress                                            Rept. 109-617
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

======================================================================

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

                                _______
                                

               September 6, 2006.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the 
                               following

                             ADVERSE REPORT

                        [To accompany H.R. 503]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 503) to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the 
shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, 
possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and 
other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report unfavorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill do not 
pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

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

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

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

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

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

  ``The Secretary shall assume responsibility for any equine that is 
unwanted by an owner.''.
  (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 12 of the Horse 
Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1831) is amended by striking ``$500,000'' and 
inserting ``$5,000,000''.

                            Purpose and Need

    It is customary when submitting a report on a committee's 
legislative action to the full House to describe for the 
benefit of Members and to document the legislative history, a 
summary of the purpose and need for the legislation under 
consideration. In the case of H.R. 503, this is a particularly 
challenging task since the purpose appears to be nothing more 
than ameliorating the emotional tirade of the extreme animal 
rights movement; and the need is, well to be blunt, there 
simply is no need for this legislation.
    H.R. 503, if adopted, would amend the Horse Protection Act 
to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, 
receiving, processing, purchasing, selling, or donation of 
horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human 
consumption, and for other purposes. Note that the 
Congressional proponents do not seem to have a problem if the 
horse is slaughtered and disposed of in a landfill, or if the 
meat from the horse is used in animal feed. They only seem to 
be focused on outlawing the cultural and ethnic practice 
prevalent in communities in the United States and around the 
world of consuming horsemeat.
    As the Committee on Agriculture heard in testimony from the 
veterinary medical community, specialists in equine medicine, 
and other horse and livestock associations, this legislation 
has far-reaching implications for the entire animal agriculture 
community.
    As stated previously, H.R. 503 is part of a larger agenda 
for the animal rights activists, an agenda against all of 
animal agriculture. The proponents of H.R. 503 are not engaged 
in a public policy discussion; they are engaged in a public 
relations campaign. They have the bumper stickers, the 
celebrities and the sound bites. They do not have facts.
    The House Committee on Agriculture and by extension the 
full House of Representatives has the duty to be guided by 
sound fact and reason in order to responsibly represent 
farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses and horse owners. As 
evidenced by the near unanimous rejection of this legislation, 
the Committee is concerned that if enacted, this bill would 
negatively impact the health and welfare of horses across the 
country.
    H.R. 503 does not address the underlying issue of unwanted 
horses in the U.S. It contributes to the problem. As a public 
policy matter, this issue should be about what is the best 
approach for the humane treatment of horses. Right now, the 
only federally regulated transportation and euthanasia of 
horses are the programs that this bill seeks to abolish. 
Ironically, government supervision of humane treatment of 
horses would be the first casualty of H.R. 503.
    If the true purpose of this legislation were to provide for 
humane treatment of horses, as the proponents say, then the 
bill would address the issue of the fate of the hundreds of 
thousands of horses it affects. If the bill were enacted as 
written, within the first 6 years there would be an estimated 
272,000 additional unwanted horses. The cost of maintaining 
these horses has been conservatively estimated at between $3 
and $4 billion. Several organizations have testified that there 
are approximately 6,000 stalls available nationwide for 
unwanted horses in rescue retirement facilities. This obviously 
does not even scratch the surface of what will be needed if 
H.R. 503 is enacted.
    If H.R. 503 were to be enacted and euthanasia for human 
consumption is prohibited, the Committee questions what would 
be done with the potentially tens of thousands of extra horse 
carcasses produced each year. All States regulate the disposal 
of animal carcasses. Local governments already grapple with the 
problem of unwanted dogs and cats and their disposal. Horses 
are on average 50 times larger animals. There will be 
tremendous difficulty for many local governments to properly 
dispose of carcasses of euthanized horses. It will be expensive 
and will create environmental and wildlife concerns. None of 
which seems to have raised the slightest nod of concern from 
the proponents of this legislation.
    In a hearing before the Committee on Agriculture to review 
this legislation, some very important questions were 
considered. These included: What do we do to solve the problem 
of unwanted horses in America? What are the rights of 
individuals to decide what to do with their animals? What are 
the implications for other livestock sectors if we ban humane 
slaughter for one species? Why would the Federal Government put 
a legitimate business, and in effect thousands of people, out 
of work? What will happen to the thousands of horses that are 
shipped to slaughter plants in other countries?
    Make no mistake about it: this bill will not stop the 
export of U.S. horses to other countries for slaughter.
    H.R. 503 provides no mechanism to ensure owners do not 
abandon horses, thus compelling the Congress to consider who 
will deal with the abandoned, starving horses whose owners lack 
the ability to care for them? Since the proponents offer no 
solutions, it is incumbent upon the Congress to consider the 
impact on States and counties that have a statutory obligation 
to deal with unwanted animals. An answer must be given to the 
question of how States and counties will cope with the 
unintended consequence of abandoned horses left on their 
doorstep.
    One scenario that proponents like to discuss is the option 
of sending the 90,000 or so unwanted horses every year to 
rescue sanctuaries. If this were to be considered a legitimate 
option, we must first ask who is going to ensure that there is 
enough space, money, and expertise to properly care for 
hundreds of thousands of animals that can easily live to 30 
years of age? Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to 
regulate these facilities?
    With all of these questions left completely unanswered in 
the hearing record, we must ask ourselves one final question: 
Why is Congress rushing to enact legislation that causes so 
many problems and solves none?
    Even if the goal of this legislation was desirable, a 
premise rejected by the Agriculture Committee, this is not a 
bill that will improve the treatment of horses. Too little has 
been done to deal with the consequences of destroying a 
legitimate industry by government fiat.
    If anything, H.R. 503 in its current form will lead to more 
suffering for the horses it purports to help. This draconian 
legislation will have far-reaching and significant detrimental 
effects for horses, horse owners and the larger agriculture 
sector.
    Having accepted the responsibility to thoroughly review and 
explore all legislation and federal policies that affect the 
agriculture community, the Committee on Agriculture finds that 
this legislation is woefully inadequate, emotionally misguided, 
and fails to serve the best interest of the American horse, and 
horse owner.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Prohibition on Shipping, Transporting, Moving, Delivering, 
        Receiving, Possessing, Purchasing, Selling, or Donation of 
        Horses and Other Equines for Slaughter for Human Consumption

    Amends the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1820 et seq.) 
for the purpose of prohibiting the slaughter of some horses for 
human consumption.
    (a) Definitions. Subsection (a) adds two new definitions to 
the Horse Protection Act. It defines ``human consumption'' as 
``ingestion by people as a source of food,'' and ``slaughter'' 
as ``the killing of one or more horses or other equines with 
the intent to sell or trade the flesh for human consumption.''
    (b) Findings. Subsection (b) adds six new congressional 
findings to the Horse Protection Act.
    (c) Prohibition. Subsection (c) adds a new prohibition to 
the Horse Protection Act in the form of a pilot program in the 
States of Kentucky and New York. Such pilot program shall 
evaluate the feasibility of a nation-wide prohibition on 
shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, 
possessing, purchasing, selling, or donating any horse or other 
equine to be slaughtered for human consumption. Subsection (c) 
also provides three exceptions to this prohibition: (1) the 
equine is owned by a State or local government; (2) the equine 
will be slaughtered at a facility in operation before the date 
of enactment of the pilot program; or (3) the equine will be 
slaughtered for human consumption for charitable or 
humanitarian purposes.
    (d) Authority to detain. Subsection (d) authorizes the 
Secretary to detain for examination, testing, or the taking of 
evidence any horse at a horse show, exhibition, sale or auction 
that the Secretary has probably cause to believe is sore, or 
any horse that the Secretary has probable cause to believe is 
being shipped, transported, moved, delivered, received, 
possessed, purchased, sold or donated for purpose of slaughter 
for human consumption in violation of the prohibition on these 
activities.
    (e) Reimbursement. Subsection (e) requires the Secretary to 
compensate the owner of an equine for the loss in value of the 
equine due to the prohibition created under subsection (c), 
above, and the cost of disposal of the equine.
    (f) Responsibility for unwanted horses. Subsection (f) 
provides that the Secretary shall assume responsibility for any 
equine that is unwanted by its owner.
    (g) Authorization of appropriations. Subsection (e) 
provides for an increase of $4.5 million per year in the 
authorization for appropriations to carry out the Horse 
Protection Act, resulting in a total authorization of $5 
million per year.

                        Committee Consideration

I. Hearings

    On July 27, 2006, the Committee on Agriculture convened a 
hearing to review H.R. 503. During the hearing, the Committee 
heard from two panels of witnesses including the Honorable Don 
Sherwood, former Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Charlie 
Stenholm, as well as witnesses representing organizations that 
oppose the bill.
    More than 200 reputable horse organizations, animal health 
organizations and agricultural organizations, including the 
American Veterinary Medical Association, the American 
Association of Equine Practitioners, the American Quarter Horse 
Association and every state Horse Council that has taken a 
position on H.R. 503, oppose the legislation.

II. Full Committee consideration

    The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice, with 
a quorum present, on July 27, 2006, to consider H.R. 503, 
legislation to amend the Horse Protection Act, and other 
pending business.
    Chairman Goodlatte called the meeting to order and without 
objection, H.R. 503 was placed before the Committee and open 
for amendment at any point. Counsel was then recognized to give 
a brief summary of the bill.
    Mr. Conaway was then recognized to offer and explain an 
amendment to require the Secretary of Agriculture to compensate 
any horse owner who, no longer having the option of selling a 
horse for processing, suffers a loss in value of his horse and 
incurs the cost of euthanasia and disposal of the horse. Brief 
discussion occurred and by a voice vote, the amendment was 
adopted.
    Mr. Salazar was recognized to offer and explain an 
amendment to require the Secretary of Agriculture to assume 
responsibility for all unwanted horses. Brief discussion 
occurred and by a voice vote, the amendment was adopted.
    Mr. King was then recognized to offer and explain an 
amendment to exempt horses that are owned or controlled by a 
state or local government. Brief discussion occurred and 
without objection, the amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. King then offered another amendment to require the 
Secretary of Agriculture to reimburse states and local 
governments for all costs they incur caring for stray or 
abandoned horses as well as providing for the sale, adoption, 
euthanization, or disposal, of such horses. Without objection, 
the amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. King also offered three amendments en bloc--an 
amendment to exempt horses to be processed for charitable or 
humanitarian relief purposes; an amendment to exempt horses 
that are owned or controlled by a state, a political 
subdivision of a state, or an individual who purchased the 
horse from a state or local government; and an amendment to 
provide that horses could not be shipped, transported, moved, 
delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold, or donated to 
be slaughtered at a plant that is not in existence on the date 
of the enactment of the Act. Brief discussion occurred and by a 
voice vote, the en bloc amendments were adopted.
    Mr. Peterson was recognized to offer and explain an 
amendment to make H.R. 503 a pilot program for the states of 
Kentucky and New York. Brief discussion occurred, and by a 
voice vote, the amendment was adopted.
    There being no further amendments, Mr. Peterson moved that 
H.R. 503 be reported unfavorably to the House, as amended, with 
the recommendation that it do not pass. A recorded vote was 
requested and by a vote of 37 yeas, 3 nays, and 6 not voting, 
the bill was ordered reported, as amended, unfavorable to the 
House with the recommendation that it do not pass. See Rollcall 
No. 1.
    After the Committee completed the other pending business, 
Mr. Goodlatte then advised Members that pursuant to the Rules 
of the House of Representatives that Members have 2 calendar 
days to file such views with the Committee. No Members came 
forth with intent to file additional views.
    Without objection, staff was given permission to make any 
necessary clerical, technical or conforming changes to reflect 
the intent of the Committee
    Chairman Goodlatte thanked all the Members and adjourned 
the meeting subject to the call of the Chair.

                   Reporting the Bill--Rollcall Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee sets forth the record of the 
following rollcall votes taken with respect to H.R. 503.

Rollcall No. 1

    Summary: Motion to unfavorably report H.R. 503, as amended, 
to the House with the recommendation that it do not pass.
    Offered by: Mr. Peterson.
    Results: Adopted by a vote of 37 yeas/ 3 nays/ 6 not 
voting.

                                  YEAS

1. Goodlatte                        20. Sodrel
2. Pombo                            21. Peterson
3. Lucas                            22. Holden
4. Moran                            23. McIntyre
5. Jenkins                          24. Etheridge
6. Hayes                            25. Cardoza
7. Osborne                          26. Marshall
8. Graves                           27. Herseth
9. Bonner                           28. Butterfield
10. Rogers                          29. Cuellar
11. King                            30. Melancon
12. Musgrave                        31. Costa
13. Neugebauer                      32. Salazar
14. Boustany                        33. Barrow
15. Schwarz                         34. Pomeroy
16. Kuhl                            35. Boswell
17. Foxx                            36. Larsen
18. Conaway                         37. Davis
19. Fortenberry

                                  NAYS

1. Johnson
2. Scott
3. Chandler

                               NOT VOTING

1. Everett
2. Gutknecht
3. Pence
4. Schmidt
5. Baca
6. Case

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture's 
oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 
body of this report.

           Budget Act Compliance (Sections 308, 402, and 423)

    The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new 
budget authority, new spending authority, new credit authority, 
or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not 
considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to 
be prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the Committee prior to the 
filing of this report are as follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 18, 2006.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 503, a bill to 
amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, 
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, 
purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to 
be slaughtered for human consumption.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jim Langley.
            Sincerely,
                                          Donald B. Marron,
                                                   Acting Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 503--A bill to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the 
        shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, 
        possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and 
        other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption

    Summary: H.R. 503 would amend provisions of the Horse 
Protection Act of 1970 related to the slaughter of certain 
equines. The bill would establish a pilot program in Kentucky 
and New York to prohibit certain activities associated with the 
slaughter of horses or other equines for human consumption. Due 
to exceptions included in the bill, this prohibition would not 
directly affect current equine slaughter activity in those or 
other States. The bill also would require the Secretary of 
Agriculture, subject to availability of appropriated funds, to 
compensate equine owners for any economic loss due to such 
prohibitions. In addition, the Secretary would be required to 
assume responsibility for any equine--in any state--that is 
unwanted by an owner.
    The bill would authorize the appropriation of up to $5 
million per year to implement its provisions, but CBO estimates 
that those amounts would be insufficient to cover costs 
incurred by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 503 would cost USDA $21 million in 2007 and 
$233 million over the 2007-2011 period. H.R. 503 would not 
affect direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 503 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 503 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined 
in UMRA. It would amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit--
within the States of New York and Kentucky--the shipping, 
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, 
purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to 
be slaughtered for human consumption. Certainexceptions to the 
prohibition would apply. The bill also would require the Secretary to 
compensate the owner of an equine who disposes of such equine due to 
the prohibition. The compensation would be equal to the loss in value 
of the equine due to the prohibition plus the disposal costs incurred. 
Since owners who would normally sell their horses for human consumption 
would be reimbursed for any loss in sale value, CBO estimates that the 
direct costs of the mandates in this bill would be minimal relative to 
the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates 
($128 million in 2006, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 503 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 350 
(agriculture).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      By fiscal year, in millions of
                                                 dollars--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2007    2008    2009    2010    2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level...      25      35      50      60      75
Estimated Outlays...............      21      33      48      58      73
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: H.R. 503 would require the Secretary to 
assume responsibility for any equine (located in any state) 
that is unwanted by an owner and would authorize the 
appropriation of $5 million annually for that purpose. CBO 
estimates, however, that the specified amounts would not be 
sufficient to cover the USDA's costs under H.R. 503. Based on 
information from USDA and private equine organizations, CBO 
estimates that fully implementing the bill would cost $233 
million over the 2007-2011 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary amounts. That amount includes $153 million to 
care for equines placed in suitable homes, $60 million to 
euthanize equines which cannot be placed in homes, and $20 
million to transport equines and provide administrative 
services. That estimate assumes that equine owners would seek 
to dispose of about 100,000 animals annually.
    According to USDA, the American Association of Equine 
Practitioners, and other private equine and humane 
associations, around 65,000 to 75,000 horses (about 1 percent 
of the domestic equine population) are sent to slaughter each 
year. Currently, there are three domestic slaughter facilities 
for horses: one in Illinois and two in Texas. H.R. 503 would 
not likely have a significant impact on the total number of 
equines slaughtered because the prohibition would only apply to 
horses in the states of Kentucky and New York, and even equines 
in those states would not be affected if, as expected, those 
equines were shipped to an existing facility for slaughter. 
Hence, CBO estimates that compensation payments from USDA to 
equine owners for the lost economic value of horses prohibited 
from being slaughtered, which would be subject to 
appropriation, would be small.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal Governments: 
H.R. 503 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 503 would 
impose a private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA. It would 
amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit--within the states 
of New York and Kentucky--the shipping, transporting, moving, 
delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or 
donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for 
human consumption.
    Exceptions to the prohibition would apply if:
     The equine is owned or controlled by a state or 
local government or owned by an individual who purchased the 
equine from a state or local government;
     The equine will be slaughtered at a facility 
operating before the date of the enactment of the prohibition; 
or,
     The equine will be slaughtered for human 
consumption for charitable or humanitarian purposes.
    The bill also would require the Secretary of Agriculture to 
compensate the owner of an equine who disposes of such equine 
due to the prohibition. The compensation would be equal to the 
loss in value of the equine due to the prohibition plus the 
disposal costs incurred. Since owners who would normally sell 
their horses for human consumption would be reimbursed for any 
loss in such sale value, CBO estimates that the direct costs of 
the mandates in this bill would be minimal relative to the 
annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector 
mandates ($128 million in 2006, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jim Langley. Impact on 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller. Impact 
on the Private Sector: Tyler Kruzich.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objections of this legislation is to 
amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, 
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, 
purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to 
be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the 
Constitutional authority for this legislation in Article I, 
clause 8, section 18, that grants Congress the power to make 
all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the powers 
vested by Congress in the Constitution of the United States or 
in any department or officer thereof.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee report incorporates the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopted as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                          HORSE PROTECTION ACT

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
Act may be cited as the ``Horse Protection Act''.
  Sec. 2. As used in this Act unless the context otherwise 
requires:
          (1) The term ``human consumption'' means ingestion by 
        people as a source of food.
          [(1)] (2) The term ``management'' means any person 
        who organizes, exercises control over, or administers 
        or who is responsible for organizing, directing, or 
        administering.
          [(2)] (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Agriculture.
          (4) The term ``slaughter'' means the killing of one 
        or more horses or other equines with the intent to sell 
        or trade the flesh for human consumption.
          [(3)] (5) The term ``sore'' when used to describe a 
        horse means that--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(4)] (6) The term ``State'' means any of the several 
        States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
        Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
        and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
  Sec. 3. The Congress finds and declares that--
          (1) horses and other equines play a vital role in the 
        collective experience of the United States and deserve 
        protection and compassion;
          (2) horses and other equines are domestic animals 
        that are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and 
        sport;
          (3) unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses 
        and other equines are not raised for the purpose of 
        being slaughtered for human consumption;
          (4) individuals selling horses or other equines at 
        auctions are seldom aware that the animals may be 
        bought for the purpose of being slaughtered for human 
        consumption;
          (5) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of 
        the Department of Agriculture has found that horses and 
        other equines cannot be safely and humanely transported 
        in double deck trailers;
          [(1)] (6) the soring of horses is cruel and inhumane;
          [(2)] (7) horses shown or exhibited which are sore, 
        where such soreness improves the performance of such 
        horse, compete unfairly with horses which are not sore;
          [(3) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of 
        sore horses in intrastate commerce adversely affects 
        and burdens interstate and foreign commerce;]
          (8) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of 
        sore horses in intrastate commerce, and the shipping, 
        transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, 
        possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation in 
        intrastate commerce of horses and other equines to be 
        slaughtered for human consumption, adversely affect and 
        burden interstate and foreign commerce;
          [(4)] (9) all horses which are subject to regulation 
        under this Act are either in interstate or foreign 
        commerce or substantially affect such commerce; and
          [(5)] (10) regulation under this Act by the Secretary 
        is appropriate to prevent and eliminate burdens upon 
        commerce and to effectively regulate commerce.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 5. The following conduct is prohibited:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (8) As a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility 
        and practicability of imposing such a prohibition 
        nation-wide, the shipping, transporting, moving, 
        delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, 
        or donation of any horse or other equine in the States 
        of Kentucky or New York to be slaughtered for human 
        consumption, unless the equine--
                  (A) is owned or controlled by a State or 
                local government or owned by an individual who 
                purchased the equine from a State or local 
                government;
                  (B) will be slaughtered at a facility 
                operating before the date of the enactment of 
                this paragraph; or
                  (C) will be slaughtered for human consumption 
                for charitable or humanitarian purposes.
          [(8)] (9) The failing to establish, maintain, or 
        submit records, notices, reports, or other information 
        required under section 4.
          [(9)] (10) The failure or refusal to permit access to 
        or copying of records, or the failure or refusal to 
        permit entry or inspection, as required by section 4.
          [(10)] (11) The removal of any marking required by 
        the Secretary to identify a horse as being detained.
          [(11)] (12) The failure or refusal to provide the 
        Secretary with adequate space or facilities, as the 
        Secretary may be regulation under section 9 prescribe, 
        in which to conduct inspections or any other activity 
        authorized to be performed by the Secretary under this 
        Act.
  Sec. 6. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e)(1) The Secretary may detain for examination, testing, or 
the taking of evidence--
          (A) any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or 
        horse sale or auction which is sore or which the 
        Secretary has probable cause to believe is sore; and
          (B) any horse or other equine which the Secretary has 
        probable cause to believe is being shipped, 
        transported, moved, delivered, received, possessed, 
        purchased, sold, or donated in violation of section 
        5(8).
          [(1) The Secretary may detain (for a period not to 
        exceed twenty-four hours) for examination, testing, or 
        the taking of evidence, any horse at any horse show, 
        horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction which is 
        sore or which the Secretary has probably cause to 
        believe is sore.] (2) The Secretary may require the 
        temporary marking of any horse during the period of its 
        detention for the purpose of identifying the horse as 
        detained. A horse which is detained subject to this 
        paragraph shall not be moved by any person from the 
        place it is so detained except as authorized by the 
        Secretary or until the expiration of the detention 
        period applicable to the horse.
          [(2)] (3) Any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or 
        substance which was used in violation of any provision 
        of this Act or any regulation issued under this Act or 
        which contributed to the soring of any horse at or 
        prior to any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
        sale or auction, shall be liable to be proceeded 
        against, by process of libel for the seizure and 
        condemnation and such equipment, device, paraphernalia, 
        or substance, in any United States district court 
        within the jurisdiction of which such equipment, 
        device, paraphernalia, or substance is found. Such 
        proceedings shall conform as nearly as possible to 
        proceedings in rem in admiralty.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [Sec. 11. As part of the report submitted by the Secretary 
under section 25 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2155), the 
Secretary shall include information on the matters covered by 
this Act, including enforcement and other actions taken 
thereunder, together with such recommendations for legislative 
and other action as he deems appropriate.]

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

  The Secretary shall compensate the owner of an equine who 
disposes of such equine due to the prohibition under section 
5(8). The Secretary shall compensate such owner for the total 
amount of--
          (1) the loss in value of the equine due to such 
        prohibition; and
          (2) the costs incurred in the disposal of such 
        equine.

SEC. 11A. RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNWANTED HORSES.

  The Secretary shall assume responsibility for any equine that 
is unwanted by an owner.
  Sec. 12. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
this Act $125,000 for the period beginning July 1, 1976, and 
ending September 30, 1976; and for the fiscal year beginning 
October 1, 1976, and for each fiscal year thereafter there are 
authorized to be appropriated such sums, not exceed [$500,000] 
$5,000,000, as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

                                  

```