REVIEW OF THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS IN

AGRICULTURE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, AND 

POULTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

May 8, 2007

Serial No. 110–18

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

www.agriculture.house.gov 

REVIEW OF THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS IN AGRICULTURE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–809 PDF 2008

REVIEW OF THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS 

IN AGRICULTURE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, 

AND POULTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 8, 2007

Serial No. 110–18

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

www.agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

Ranking Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ’Randy’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, AND POULTRY

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa, Chairman 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

Ranking Minority Member 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

CHANDLER GOULE, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Boswell, Hon. Leonard, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, 

opening statment .................................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52

Hayes, Hon. Robin, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54

Lampson, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 55

King, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 56

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Minnesota, opening statement ............................................................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59

WITNESSES

Stenholm, Hon. Charlie, Olsson, Frank, and Weeda, P.C., Washington, D.C. ... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60

Pacelle, Mr. Wayne, President and CEO, The Humane Society of the United 

States, Washington, D.C. ..................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64

Golab, Dr. Gail C., PhD, DVM, Associate Director, Animal Welfare Division, 

American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, Illinois .................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79

Leary, Dr. Steven L., DVM, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Veterinary Affairs, 

Washington University, on behalf of National Association for Biomedical 

Research, St. Louis, Missouri .............................................................................. 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98

Gregory, Mr. Gene, President, United Egg Producers, Alpharetta, Georgia ...... 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108

Gonzalez, Mr. Guillermo, Owner, Sonoma Foie Gras, on behalf of Artisan 

Farmers Alliance, Sonoma, California ............................................................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 114

Martosko, Mr. David, Director of Research, Center for Consumer Freedom, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 25

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116

Baur, Mr. Gene, President, Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen, New York ............ 37

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 123

Ramsey, Mr. Paxton, Member, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Devers, 

Texas ..................................................................................................................... 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 131

Determan, Ms. Barbara, National Pork Producers Council, Early, Iowa ........... 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 136

Lange, Ms. Leslie Vagneur, National Director, American Quarter Horse Association, Greeley, Colorado .................................................................................... 43

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 153

Jordan, Dr. Karen, Owner, Large Animal Veterinary Services, on behalf of 

National Milk Producers Federation, Siler City, North Carolina .................... 45

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 158

Page

IV

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Scott, Mr. Bryan, Executive Vice President, American Veal Association, Antioch, Illinois ........................................................................................................... 161

Golab, Dr. Gail C., PhD, DVM, Associate Director, Animal Welfare Division, 

American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, Illinois .................... 171

Pacelle, Mr. Wayne, President and CEO, Humane Society of the U.S., Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 175

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association .................................................................. 180

Riley, Ms. Janet M., Senior Vice President, American Meat Institute, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................... 204

Baur, Mr. Gene, President, Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen, New York ............ 304

Gregory, Mr. Gene, President, United Egg Producers, Alpharetta, Georgia ...... 308

American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D.C. ....................................... 328

Stenholm, Hon. Charlie, Olsson, Frank, Weeda, P.C., Washington, D.C. .......... 333

Jordan, Dr. Karen, DVM, Owner, Large Animal Veterinary Services, on behalf of National Milk Producers Federation, Siler City, North Carolina ........ 242

Lange, Ms. Leslie Vagneur, National Director, American Quarter Horse Association, Greeley, Colorado [American Quarter Horse Association Official 

Handbook of Rules and Regulations Contained in Committee Records] ......... 391

Answers to submitted questions ............................................................................. 432

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW THE WELFARE OF 

ANIMALS IN AGRICULTURE 

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, AND POULTRY

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Leonard Boswell [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Boswell, Kagen, Holden, 

Cardoza, Lampson, Costa, Peterson (ex officio), Hayes, King, 

Conaway, Smith, Walberg, Schmidt and Goodlatte (ex officio). 

Staff present: Adam Durand, Chandler Goule, Tyler Jameson, 

Scott Kuschmider, John Riley, Sharon Rusnak, April Slayton, 

Debbie Smith, Kristin Sosanie, Lindsey Correa, John Goldberg, 

Pam Miller, Stephanie Myers, Pete Thomson, and Jamie Weyer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD BOSWELL, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. BOSWELL. We would like to call our meeting to order for 

today, and I would like to thank all of you for being here. I give 

a special thanks to our witnesses for offering their insight into the 

current welfare issues surrounding animal agriculture. I look forward to hearing your testimony. I think it an opportunity for us to 

share together and treat each other like we would like to be treated 

and get some things out we ought to be talking about. 

I would just say this. Having spent most of my life involved in 

animal agriculture, I understand many of the issues firsthand. 

Looking back over my own history, I have worked with a variety 

of animals from dairy cows to feeder pigs to my current cow-calf 

operation and of course we have always had a couple of horses or 

more on the farm as we do even today. So these issues are not 

showing up on my radar for the first time. 

We will hear from all sides of this issue today with two primary 

questions, maybe more: what is the status of animal welfare in 

American agriculture, and what is the industry currently doing to 

address the concerns of consumers. On the first question, as animal 

agriculture has grown over the past 50 years, I believe our views 

on animal welfare have advanced. Today we will hear from the industry about the science-based self-regulation that the poultry, cattle, hog and many other livestock producers have developed to ensure that welfare standards remain current and reflect consumer 

concerns. 

2

My own experience in agriculture has shown me what happens 

when producers treat their animals poorly. Take, for example, 

dairy cows. If these animals are not properly fed, watered, and 

sheltered, we know what happens to milk production, which makes 

a difference in many cases whether the person can stay in business 

or close their doors. Mistreated animals simply will not produce 

and that is not good for the animal or the farmer. 

On the second question, I believe that the industry has already 

taken steps to address some consumer concerns. With the recent 

boom in demand for organic agriculture, which is going on across 

the country, it is clear that more and more consumers are focusing 

on not only what their food is but where it has come from and how 

it was grown and raised. For example, Burger King, Wendy’s, Ben 

and Jerry’s and all Wolfgang Puck restaurants also now expect 

their suppliers to meet certain animal welfare standards. 

I welcome these changes in industry from cage-free to free range 

chickens. Consumers deserve the choice. If someone is willing to 

pay $3 for a dozen eggs to ensure they come from chickens that 

lived in certain conditions, they should have that option. Similarly, 

if someone decides to use products from conventionally raised animals, they should have that choice as well as long as the operation 

is up to Federal, State and industry standards. 

These voluntary market-driven changes may or may not be 

enough to fix problems in the industry. However, there may still 

be more than we can do. That is why hearings like this are important. We need to consider all options and we must ensure that existing laws are being enforced before we move too quickly to write 

new ones. Creating news laws before the new ones are properly enforced is not necessarily the solution. Our hope is this hearing 

today will not simply focus on problems but solutions as well. We 

need solutions not only to protect animals but ensure safe, plentiful, and affordable food supply. 

Animal agriculture is a multibillion-dollar industry in the United 

States which not only helps feed those of us in this room but people 

around the world. In a sense, we all have a vested interest in agriculture, the consumer as well as the producer. We all have a vested 

interest for this reason, and that is simply this: Based on per capita, we have the least expensive food in the world. That is right. 

We have the most plentiful and we have the safest per capita. The 

percentage of disposable income in the United States, I am told by 

those who study this, is the lowest by quite a bit compared to modern places like western Europe all the way to the undeveloped 

countries where this takes all of their income. So we have a very 

good situation in that sense. We have food that is safe, plentiful 

and inexpensive. 

So as we go on to this discussion today, for some it is a highly 

emotional situation but I am glad to have witnesses from all sides 

of the debate so we can have a candid, respectful and productive 

discussion on the welfare of animals in American agriculture. 

So at this time, I would like to turn it over to my good friend 

and colleague, Robin Hayes from North Carolina, for any opening 

remarks he would like to make. 

3

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Boswell has 

called today’s hearing to discuss animal welfare issues affecting 

American’s livestock and poultry producers. 

I am pleased that we will be hearing from the former Ranking 

Member of this committee and someone who is a great friend and 

expert of the U.S. producers, Congressman Charlie Stenholm. We 

welcome you hear today and know that you bring us insightful 

words of wisdom regarding animal welfare and the challenges that 

lie ahead for animal agriculture. I am sure Mr. Stenholm would 

agree that it is our job as members of this committee representing 

our agricultural constituents back home to stand strong for our 

producers and stand up to anyone wishing to put them out of business. 

I must applaud the animal agriculture industry for the great 

strides they have made over the years to address animal welfare. 

Producers have been proactive in the humane treatment of animals 

by implementing industry-led standards and guidelines based on 

the latest scientific recommendations for animal welfare and I 

might add their own concern for their own animals. Farmers, 

ranchers and sound science-based veterinarians, not activists, 

should be dictating animal husbandry practices. I am pleased to 

see representatives of the scientific and research community as 

well as the livestock industry that are here to share with us the 

programs and measures they have in place to ensure animals are 

treated with the utmost of care. 

Mr. Chairman, with the farm bill looming, I would like to express my concern about the timing of the hearing. I think we all 

recognize that we are in the middle of working on the farm bill and 

the hearings we have should directly relate to farm bill issues, especially considering the time constraints we are under. Given the 

fact that I do not believe these issues should be included in the 

farm bill, I do question the timing of the hearing. I believe everyone would be better served if we address these issues outside of the 

farm bill venue so that they can receive the attention they deserve. 

Having said that, I appreciate you and applaud your efforts to 

be inclusive in this hearing and I appreciate the witnesses’ time in 

being here today. Thank you. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. I notice we have the Chairman of the Full Committee with us and I would like to offer an opportunity for Congressman Peterson at this time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Chairman PETERSON. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member for their leadership in calling this hearing. I have got a 

statement but I think we have got a fairly long list of witnesses 

so I am just going to include the statement for the record and look 

forward to hearing the testimony. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, and I recognize Mr. Goodlatte, who is 

the Ranking Member of the Full Committee. 

4

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

take this opportunity to welcome each of our witnesses today and 

to thank them for their time and effort in addressing the complex 

issues of today’s hearing. 

In my conversations with Chairman Peterson, he has laid out a 

very challenging and aggressive schedule for the pending farm bill. 

For that reason, I am curious why we are having this particular 

hearing at this particular time. While we all share the same values 

in regard to animal welfare, the practical application of those values requires significantly more time and thoroughness than this 

hearing affords. Additionally, this hearing lacks the participation of 

the sheep industry or the packers including poultry, pork and beef 

sectors or animal exhibitions such as zoos, circuses, marine animal 

parks, rodeos or companion animal representatives. I think that if 

we were to have a complete record on this topic, we need to hear 

from all of them as well. 

Like all Americans, I support the humane treatment of all animals including those in our Nation’s farms and stockyards, research facilities, processing plants, exhibitions and our homes. It is 

our responsibility to be good stewards of the animals under our 

charge. 

Let me be clear on this point. I know that I speak for my colleagues on this committee when I say that the inhumane treatment 

of animals will not be tolerated. In conversations I have had with 

farmers and ranchers across the country, it is clear that the animal 

agriculture industry shares this strong belief and appreciate for the 

animals in their care. These farmers work alongside their animals 

day in and day out. These animals are the very livelihood of many 

farmers in the 6th District of Virginia and elsewhere. For that reason, the animal agriculture industry continues to develop practices 

on its own that meet the evolving scientific research on animal welfare. As we discuss these issues going forward, I will continue to 

take my guidance from the men and women involved in animal agriculture, trusting in the knowledge that they both care about their 

animals and understand the challenges associated with their care. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of today’s witnesses and their responses to our questions. Thank you. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte. I appreciate you being 

with us today. 

The chair would request that other members submit their opening statements for the record so that witnesses may begin their testimony and we will do our best to ensure that there is ample time 

for questions. 

So at this time I would like to welcome our first panelist to the 

table, the Honorable Charlie Stenholm. Mr. Stenholm, please begin 

when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE STENHOLM, OLSSON, FRANK 

AND WEEDA, P.C., WASHINGTON, DC. 

Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Hayes, members of the committee. I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify here today on behalf of all animal agriculture. 

5

If you eat or wear clothes, you are affected by agriculture. The industry remains an important part of the United States economy. 

According to USDA, animal products account for the majority, 51 

percent, of the value of U.S. agricultural products, exceeding $100 

billion per year. 

I am sure many of you went to zoos as a child or will bring your 

children or grandchildren to one this summer. Caregivers at zoos 

nationwide care about the welfare of their animals. Many of you 

probably remember the first time you saw a circus and may attend 

one when it comes here. The Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey 

Center for Elephant Conservation has one of the most successful 

breeding programs for endangered Asian elephants outside of 

Southeast Asia. They care about the welfare of their animals. Just 

like these groups of animal owners, production agriculture has not 

and will never be given the credit it is due by animal rights activists and that we too care about the welfare of our animals. 

There is one thing though that everyone you will hear from today 

agrees on. All animals should be treated humanely from birth until 

death. Now, what you will not hear is an agreement on the facts. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but not everyone is entitled 

to their interpretation of the facts. You will hear testimony today 

from several livestock producer associations and they all care about 

the same thing: ensuring the health and well-being of their animals is their number one priority. 

The livestock industry has worked hard both from a legislative 

standpoint through this committee and through industry guidelines 

to improve animal welfare conditions. Animal agriculture constantly works to accept new technologies and science and apply 

them to industry, investing millions of dollars every year to ensure 

the wellness of their livestock. Producers recognize the need to 

maintain animal welfare regulations for the safety and nutrition of 

their livestock, for the conservation of the environment and for the 

profitability of their operations. But those regulations should be 

based on sound science from veterinary professionals that best understand animals, working together with legitimate animal use industries. 

While the livestock industry has a long history of supporting animal welfare, many activist groups such as PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, and Farm Sanctuary have used falsehoods and scare tactics to push their hidden agendas of fundraising 

and systematically abolishing all use of animals including production agriculture, zoos, circuses and sporting events. These groups 

campaign for animal rights, which is not synonymous with animal 

welfare, using half truths or complete deception. These groups also 

fail to mention the millions of dollars in fundraising and assets 

that drive their misguided goals. The Humane Society has accumulated $113 million in assets, has a budget 3 times the size of 

PETA’s, and according to the ActivistCash website, has more than 

enough funding to finance animal shelters in all 50 States. Yet it 

only operates one animal sanctuary, Black Beauty Ranch in Texas, 

which is at full capacity. Now, you will hear later that they are 

doing more, and that is great, we commend them for it, but they 

haven’t to this point. According to the Wall Street Journal, two offshoots of Humane Society spent $3.4 million on Congressional elecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:30 Jan 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39809.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
6

tions and ballot initiatives, which is more than Exxon Mobile Corporation spent and there is an ongoing investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General to determine if the $30 million the Humane Society fundraised during the Hurricane Katrina crisis has 

been handled appropriately. 

Now, these activist groups use the platform of animal rights to 

advocate for regulations so strict they will put animal agriculture 

out of business, which is their real goal. A video recently circulated 

to Members of Conservation and a video produced by the Humane 

Society make numerous false claims against the livestock industry. 

For example, the video suggests that horses are inhumanely transported on double-deck trailers on their way to slaughter, and if a 

horse does arrive in one of those trailers, the processing facility 

would not accept it. They say that we are still doing it. It has been 

against the law since 1995. In addition, numerous truck drivers invested in new trailers at a tremendous investment on their part to 

comply with the law and agriculture has stepped up once again to 

improve animal welfare conditions. 

Another example of misleading rhetoric by animal rights activists 

involves the process of captive bolt euthanasia. The previously 

mentioned videos claim that captive bolt is not humane. Interestingly, however, the 2000 report of the AVMA’s panel on euthanasia 

specifically approves the use of captive bolt as a humane technique 

of euthanasia for horses. It is also an approved method of euthanasia for pork, cattle and lamb. The captive bolt method meets specific humane requirements set forth by AVMA’s panel on euthanasia, USDA and, interestingly, the Humane Society of the United 

States statement on euthanasia because it results in instantaneous 

brain death and is generally agreed to be the most humane method 

of euthanasia for livestock. Watching the end of life for any living 

creature is not a pleasant experience, even when performed in the 

most humane manner. However, these groups continue to use 

human emotion and sensationalism to prey on the public’s sensitivity in order to reach their goal of abolishing animal agriculture. 

Unfortunately, we all know mistakes happen and laws are broken. We cannot say that any form of euthanasia is perfect. I will 

not try to convince you or anyone else otherwise. But when these 

unfortunate incidents occur, appropriate action should be taken. 

We should not get in the habit of creating arbitrary, uninformed 

and emotionally based regulations on an industry whose livelihood 

depends on the health and well-being of its animals. We should not 

tie the hands of researchers and investors that continually seek improvements in animal welfare practices and we should not tie the 

hands of producers who work night and day to ensure the quality 

of life of their livestock so they can provide this country and others 

with the most abundant, safest, and the most affordable food supply. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, professional experts such as 

AVMA, the American Association of Equine Practitioners and 

USDA should not have their expertise continue to be questioned by 

animal rights activists who line their own pockets with donations 

secured by exploiting and distorting the issues. These groups throw 

sensationalistic and often staged photos in the faces of those who 

do not understand it including your fellow Members of Congress 

7

not on this committee. What they do not do is use their millions 

of dollars in fundraising to build animal shelters and provide research for new technologies and procedures or provide truthful information to consumers about animal agriculture industry. Emotions run high and with continued antics by activist groups, the ultimate outcome will be devastating. If animal rights activist groups 

continue to be successful like we have seen in recent months with 

the closing of U.S. horse processing facilities, abandonment of animals will increase, animal welfare will decline, honest and legal 

businesses will close, America’s trade balance will worsen, jobs will 

disappear, family heritage and livelihood will be stolen and the 

best interest in the welfare of animals will be lost. 

As the Agriculture Committee, it is your job and responsibility to 

keep science and best management practices at the forefront of 

your decisions when developing legislation. Emotional, feel-good 

policy is not reasonable for the agricultural industry. As a committee, you are tasked with providing the type of environment for 

your agricultural constituents and your other constituents, the 99.3 

percent of your constituents who enjoy the food that is produced by 

the .07 percent that in fact are the producers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Stenholm. We appreciate 

that. You covered a lot of territory. I didn’t know a Texan could 

talk that fast. I appreciate what you said. I have a couple questions 

and then we will go to the rest of the members. 

Some of your testimony speaks of the efforts of the European 

Union to regulate animal welfare. What are your thoughts on these 

efforts and has it impacted their trade balance? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Well, one of the—you look for a pony in the pile 

every now and then in this whole area and just recently Britain 

has decided they have had enough with the animal rights activists 

in Britain where a lot of our folks go to be trained in some of the 

tactics that are used and they have said enough is enough, and interestingly, public perception in Europe is now beginning to 

change. Europeans are finally, recognizing that if you continue to 

do as some would have us to do, eliminate the use of animals in 

research and eliminate the use of good science and technology in 

all production agriculture, that the world is going to have a hard 

time feeding itself. So that is one of the areas that we have seen 

a little good news. Just this last week USA Today had an article 

on it, it was the first time I had heard about it. But from the 

standpoint of trade balance, I have been fortunate and honored and 

pleased to be declared the spokesman for the Horse Welfare Coalition over the last year and a half. Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Peterson last year, turned around this year, did an excellent job on this committee of showing to our colleagues that ending the horse industry, which is what the folks have successfully 

done with the temporary reprieve now with Cavel being back in operation as I speak but hopefully a permanent reprieve coming soon 

in which the processing component of the horse industry, which 

adds over $30 million to the export trade surplus for the United 

States, will not be ended. People will say to you, we don’t have any 

intention of ending the animal industry but folks have been almost 

successful in ending the horse processing industry in the United 

8

States at a loss of jobs, loss of income and the devastating results 

now to the horse industry that we are already beginning to see. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. I have other questions but I think I 

will yield to Mr. Hayes at this time. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Stenholm, it is a rare and unique opportunity to have someone of your stature who has been on both sides of the witness table 

and we appreciate what you bring to the table and you also have 

been on both sides of the horse and the cow and the livestock industry. Just take a few moments, if you will, to describe from your 

own perspective the attitude and the relationship between the 

rancher and his animals. 

Mr. STENHOLM. That is one of the parts of the emotionalism of 

this that has really bothered me, and again, I want to make it very 

clear. I respect the rights of those who you will hear from who basically want to eliminate horse slaughter as an option. I respect their 

right to that opinion. But I do not respect their right to take that 

away from me as a horse owner or my fellow horse owners. The 

private property rights option is one that the cattle industry and 

the horse industry and sheep industry and all agriculture and it is 

amazing to me how many of our members now in this Congress 

have suddenly forgotten about individual property rights. No one 

argues about how a horse’s life should be ended or a calf’s life 

should be ended. Well, some do. Some believe no life should ever 

be ended except naturally, but that is a very small minority. But 

an owner of livestock, to be accused of mismanaging or mishandling their livestock when their very livelihood depends on that 

animal living a healthy life under the best conditions that you can 

present to them affects the bottom line. Now, this bothers some 

people, the bottom line. But, Mr. Chairman, as you noted in your 

opening statement, we are blessed to live in a country that has the 

most abundant food supply, the best quality, the safest food supply 

at the lowest cost of people in any other country in the world. That 

doesn’t happen by accident. That happens because producers use 

the best science and technology from the best universities in the 

world, teaching our young people how to do better, how it used to 

be said in Norman Borlog’s time, how to make 2 blades of grass 

grow where 1 grew before and then to use that and to use it in a 

humane fashion. 

With all due respect, I would say that I believe it is good we are 

holding this hearing today because you can be almost guaranteed 

that there will be amendments offered in the Congress on an appropriations bill, which got us off on the wrong foot with horses a 

couple years ago, you remember. You can imagine that there will 

be folks that will have amendments, and by providing this good 

record today, showing what ranchers, farmers, livestock producers, 

all individuals who are concerned about the welfare of animals 

what you are actually doing is something that I know you have already been using but what we have got to do is find a way to get 

that story out to where more of the non-agricultural press begin to 

pick up on what we are really doing in agriculture, not what some 

people say we are. 

9

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, sir, and one more question. As a rancher, 

is there anything any more important to you as a businessman and 

rancher than the welfare of your livestock? 

Mr. STENHOLM. No. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BOSWELL. At this time the chair recognizes Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Charlie, welcome back. We very much appreciate your testimony 

and very much appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this 

committee for many years including as the Ranking Member. 

You mentioned in your testimony that the Humane Society of the 

United States operates an animal sanctuary in Texas. Is this sanctuary subject to regulation under the Federal Animal Welfare Act? 

Mr. STENHOLM. I don’t believe that it is but I think you will find 

general agreement that it should be. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Has it been inspected by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Not to my knowledge it has not. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you know anything about its compliance history with animal welfare regulations? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Not to my knowledge, it doesn’t. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. There is no record at the Federal level? 

Mr. STENHOLM. There is no record that we have ever been able 

to determine because again, under current law, I believe this approximates what is called private property rights but this is an 

area that quite rightly should be looked at in the same venue in 

which we look at how we have done an excellent job of regulating 

the horse processing industry, for example. Every horse that is 

brought to the plan is inspected. This constant statement of stolen 

horses is not true. Now, when I say that, there is always the possibility that one is going to slip through the cracks. It is like the unloading of the double-decker trucks. Every horse that is euthanized 

in a processing plant, it is done under the supervision of a veterinarian. That is not true in other countries of the world. So, this is 

where there is a lot of needs out there by those who advocate the 

abolition of horse slaughter in this case without ever answering the 

question what is going to happen to the 100,000 unwanted horses 

and how are they going to be regulated and under what conditions. 

We are seeing it all over the country now, all over the country in 

which we are already beginning to see inhumane treatment of 

horses by people who have good intentions. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I take it if that sanctuary is not inspected under 

the Federal Animal Welfare Act, than other sanctuaries for animals are not inspected as well. Is that correct? 

Mr. STENHOLM. That is my understanding because in our pursuit 

of legislation and pursuit of bigger and better laws, I guess is what 

you would say, that is one area that has not been looked at to the 

same degree that we have in all of other production agriculture. We 

got a double standard. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I see periodically, even under the current circumstances where there are clearly not enough sanctuaries for unwanted animals, horses included, of course, in existence right now, 

I see periodic reports even of the number that exist today of animals not treated well where local authorities intercede to take acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:30 Jan 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39809.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
10

tion for animals that are underfed or not given proper treatment 

or medical care. Do you think that is a circumstance that ought to 

be regulated? 

Mr. STENHOLM. That is always a tough call for me because I 

think we have got plenty of regulation in so many areas and I always hesitate before I answer a question of that nature. It is tremendously costly. I think that is something that we would want to 

look at. Certainly if we are going to follow the line that some are 

advocating in which you are going to have more and more unwanted horses that have to be cared for, more and more unwanted 

other animals that have to be cared for. At some point in time I 

think you are going to see a clamor for it. But in the same vein 

in which we have as production agriculture, as we have constantly 

and consistently upgraded our laws and regulations to meet the 

sincere requirements or the commonsense requirements for humane treatment of animals, it is amazing that we have kind of excused some of the other side from any of that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I see my time is almost expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte. 

The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Cardoza. Mr. Cardoza has stepped out. Okay. Mr. 

Lampson stepped out. I am just catching up here. I guess I should 

keep up with everybody who is coming and going. 

Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. I didn’t chase anybody out, Mr. Chairman. They left 

on their own. 

Congressman Stenholm, I am new in Congress, a little over 110 

or 120 days, and I want to thank you for your years of service. I 

have got to ask you, do you miss being a Congressman? 

Mr. STENHOLM. I don’t miss the hours you are keeping and I 

don’t miss the controversy that you are involved in. It feels pretty 

good to be up here telling you what you ought to do. 

Mr. KAGEN. Well, my father raises horses and he told me when 

I came to Congress I would be getting a lot of advice and I appreciate your advice, but you served on this committee before and you 

have seen these issues come up before in terms of animal welfare. 

Has anything changed over the years in terms of your point of 

view, not just back home but also here in Congress in terms of how 

you feel Congress could make a difference on the farm or in agricultural control of animals? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Yes, I have seen dramatic changes from—this 

will be my 8th farm bill that I have participated in, 2 before Congress, 5 in and 1 now after Congress. It used to be back in the good 

old days, as was said, that only had to consult 3 entities to write 

a farm bill, or any issue. One was the House and Senate Ag committees, 2 was USDA, and 3 was the farm organizations. Well, we 

now have hundreds if not thousands of organizations that have an 

interest and again, as I said in my testimony, have every right to 

have input into the policies of our food production system but it 

makes for a much more complex situation and it makes the difficulty of finding a majority vote that is helpful is a lot more challenging than it was 28 years ago when I sat not in that chair but 

down here. 

11

Mr. KAGEN. Well, would you agree that there is an economic interest on all people in agriculture who raise animals for eventual 

slaughter or for use in food production to keep their animals happy 

and healthy and their general welfare? Isn’t there an economic interest to keep them in that condition? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Absolutely. Here again, I respect all opinions. My 

opinion differs from what is humane treatment and the most acceptable from some of the animal rights folks. That is the biggest 

disagreement I have with the idea that animals have rights like 

humans have rights. All animals deserve to be humanely treated 

from birth until death, period. Definitions of humane treatment 

from birth until death differ, particularly with those of us who 

raise animals and those who only consider them pets. 

Mr. KAGEN. Very good. Thank you very much. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Charlie. Good to see you here this morning. There has 

also been restrictions placed on our ability to manage wild horses 

and wild burros on Federal lands being swept into this whole issue 

as well. What is your understanding of how those excess horses 

and burros are being warehoused? 

Mr. STENHOLM. This is an interesting phenomenon that we have 

today because in the wisdom of Congress several years ago, we decided that excess wild horses could not be processed for human consumption and therefore must be preserved until their natural 

death or they are adopted and most of us in production agriculture 

agree that adoption of wild horses is the preferred alternative. The 

last resort is slaughter for human consumption. But now we have 

somewhere around 30,000 wild horses unadoptable, unwanted that 

are being fed in feed lots and other pasture operations at a cost to 

taxpayers approximating $50 million a year and we are going to 

add another 4,000 surplus horses to that number this year. Now, 

here is where I have a little bit of problem with what I guess kindly I would have to say is a little hypocrisy because many of the 

same groups that say it is inhumane to keep wild animals in zoos 

say it is perfectly all right to keep a wild animal in a pen, a wild 

horse or a wild burro. Now, that is where common sense gets in 

the way of good policy and that is why it is so emotional. But we 

are talking about real horse owners, the majority of which disagree 

with the majority of Congress and with the majority of this House 

voted and a majority of the Senate committee. They will tell you 

privately, we understand but it is emotionalism and that is scary 

but you bring up a point that again common sense needs to be prevailing in this and it doesn’t make sense to spend $50 million a 

year feeding unwanted wild horses. 

Mr. CONAWAY. My second question was going to be, if those feed 

lots were zoos, would they meet standards for maintaining animals? A horse is a roaming type of an animal and to keep it locked 

in the feed lot for years, cattle go into feed lots for a limited 

amount of time but putting a horse into a feed lot environment for 

the rest of its natural days to me seems noticeably cruel. 

12

Mr. STENHOLM. I have to assume that they are because that is 

under the jurisdiction of the BLM and I have to assume that the 

regulations like Mr. Goodlatte was asking about, private facilities, 

do not apply there but I think this is a question that I would recommend to this committee to ask the appropriate committee in the 

Interior to do a little oversight on this. I don’t think we have done 

any oversight that I can remember and that is a long time. 

Mr. CONAWAY. We have asked for pictures and we are trying to 

get those. Let me ask you this. Under the Fifth Amendment, by 

taking personal property away from folks, which is in effect what 

this destroying the horse processing business does, do you see the 

Federal Government having a responsibility for all of these abandoned horses as a result of not being able to sell them into a market that previously existed? In other words, is there an unfunded 

mandate that we passed that forces counties to now take care of 

these horses that are abandoned? Should that be the Federal Government’s responsibility to assume responsibility for those horses 

that this business has taken out by these new regulations, new 

laws? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Only if the Federal Government insists on following a procedure in which the Federal Government determines 

what is going to happen to the unwanted horses. Then I think it 

is natural the Federal Government should assume the responsibility. It is like what we have done with wild horses. We have assumed that. But, I have been working with the livestock marketing 

association. The first people that have come in contact now with 

this unwanted horse phenomenon has been the people bringing 

their horse in to the livestock auction to sell it and they are being 

turned away because they are being told we can’t buy your horse; 

what do you mean, you can’t buy my horse? The Federal Government has now provided laws enforced by the courts so far that we 

can’t buy your horse to go to a processing plant. What do you 

mean, you can’t buy my horse? It is my horse. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, actually I can’t sell my horse. 

Mr. STENHOLM. Yes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Or, why can’t I sell my horse? 

Mr. STENHOLM. Why can’t I sell my horse, why can’t you buy my 

horse? That is a good question and it is one the legal courts are 

ultimately going to have to decide of which I believe as you, I believe by the nature of your question, believe, it is a private property 

right. Taking away that right is bordering on unconstitutionality. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. 

The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from our distinguished colleague and friend who I 

think is well respected, as it has already been established. 

In your testimony, Mr. Stenholm, you talked about what constitutes in your mind animal welfare that is reflective of the care 

that I think we all want to see provided whether we are talking 

about one person’s animals or whether we are talking about, in the 

case of animal and livestock industries, business efforts that also 

13

constitute proper care of animals. Have you or your organization 

had an opportunity beyond Texas to look at and examine or your 

organization the list of animal welfare laws that exist in the country today, and if your organization has, do you have an ability to 

reflect on what areas and which States are working better than 

others? It seems to me that under the theory that, you know, there 

is really not that much that is new under a lot of this, that taking 

a reflection of what a lot of States have done, some efforts have 

been I think positive, some have not worked as intended and some 

have always faced, as I like to say, the law of unintended consequences. I am wondering if you could give us a snapshot in terms 

of what you sense, what your organization senses as occurring 

around the country. 

Mr. STENHOLM. Well, we have got more and more States getting 

involved in determining what is humane and inhumane treatment 

of animals. That is one of the concerns that I bring to this committee. You know, at some point we have got to have some uniformity in what the standards are. It is going to be an impossible 

situation to have differing States with differing rules and regulations in modern commerce. You know, we have had the attacks on 

the veal industry and certain States have outlawed veal production. We have had the sow stalls controversy now that is creating 

a lot of consternation in the pork industry and again, sow stalls 

and what you replace them with or what you do to me always 

needs to be based on the sound science and what is best for the 

pigs. There are different opinions on that. Different States are beginning to involve themselves. Ranking Member Goodlatte mentioned the need of regulation in States of some of the animal welfare groups that are going to be there. You are going to hear in just 

a moment that there is a big effort now to provide for animal shelters. That is great, but under what Federal supervision and should 

it be State supervision? These are questions that you are going to 

have to answer. I specifically speak to the horse issue but right 

now we are in the process of attempting to repeal the law in Texas 

prohibiting it. As I speak, there is a hearing and a protest in Illinois regarding the banning of the Cavel processing plant. The protest is coming from horse owners saying to Illinois, please don’t ban 

horse processing in the State of Illinois. You are going to see more 

and more of this because it is so emotional and it is so sensational 

for those on the other side. It is difficult to stand up in a State legislature where you served so well for so many years. You know the 

difficulty of dealing with emotionalism and the different States 

doing it is going to wreck havoc on an animal industry. 

Mr. COSTA. In the remainder of my time, I would like to make 

a suggestion and that is that you, with some of the other organizations that are so concerned and I think appropriately so, possibly 

set up a type of a workshop and maybe we do it in conjunction with 

the subcommittee with organizations like the National Conference 

of State Legislatures, with possibly the National Governors Association. I mean, I think there needs to be a matrix, Mr. Chairman, 

as we look at what laws exist around the country and see if we can 

get a better understanding of the challenges out there, what has 

worked, what has not worked, and see if we can bring about some 

level of consensus and uniformity because frankly, I think this curVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:30 Jan 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39809.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
14

rent situation status quo is not helpful to the industry. It is not 

helpful to humane treatment for animals in areas where we can I 

think have agreement and it seems to me something that we could 

work on. 

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Costa, there is an effort, I believe they are 

called the Animal Alliance, that is set up on the agriculture side 

to help do just what you are suggesting and I think that you will 

be hearing from them quite often. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you for the suggestion. 

The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Congressman Stenholm, for appearing before us today. 

Growing up in rural America, certainly I have always paid a lot 

of attention to animal issues, livestock issues, and most recently, 

or more recently I should say, it has been brought to my attention 

the commitment that having animals on the premises entails, 

whether it is a small dog or cat or certainly a horse, and the financial commitment of caring appropriately whether it is the feeding 

or veterinary expenses as well. You touched a little bit on the cost 

of caring for these wild horses and certainly that was a new number for me. It has been brought to my attention in my district that 

there is a concern that you have touched on a bit of what do we 

do with the unwanted horses and there has been some concern expressed in my district that a rancher might find some unwanted 

horses on his or her property. What then? I mean, are you aware 

of what the options a rancher might have, that are liability issues 

and certainly in light of Federal penalties that may exist? Could 

you please elaborate? 

Mr. STENHOLM. You bring up a very good question, and if it is 

on a ranch and the horse is unwanted, it probably will be 

euthanized with a bullet and allowed—well, it probably won’t even 

be buried and nobody will ever know about it. But if you are in a 

non-rural area, you have a problem. Landfills in many cities will 

not accept large animals so you don’t have the option of euthanasia 

by a veterinarian, and here it is interesting to me when you hear—

there are three ways of euthanizing that unwanted horse. One is 

captive bolt, which is the most humane, two is bullet, and three is 

overdose of barbiturates. Talk to any veterinarian and they will tell 

you that overdose of barbiturates is not the most humane way to 

end your horse’s life. That is what veterinarians tell us. And we are 

already seeing this happening. We are seeing it reportedly in Kentucky now, these are thoroughbreds, and contrary to what you hear 

from California, talk to the livestock auctions and listen to them 

what is happening there with mistreated horses that come in to 

them. People bring them in because they find them wandering. 

People don’t have the wherewithal financially to deal with that 

question. Renderers, we don’t have many of those left. In some 

cases that is an option but you have to pay somebody to come get 

your horse. That gets into what Mr. Conaway was talking about a 

moment ago. What makes the Federal Government believe that we 

in our super wisdom can take away the private property right of 

that individual rancher who finds that horse to take it and receive 

value from if it is still of value? What makes us believe that we 

15

can do this constitutionally, but those are the choices that you are 

putting on those ranchers that you are talking about. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. 

The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have one question and I hope it wasn’t asked before I entered the room but I will take the chance on that. Someone said 

that if we continue down the path that we are on presently in relation to animal welfare, specifically the horse slaughter bill, that we 

are basically beginning the roadmap to the end of taking meat, 

pork, poultry and other meats off the dinner table. Now, that is a 

statement I have heard numerous times in the past several weeks, 

and I would, Mr. Stenholm, be interested in just seeing how you 

respond to that. Is that a path that indeed we are taking or is that 

just a scare tactic? 

Mr. STENHOLM. I have to say that there are those, I don’t brand 

everyone, I don’t want to say everyone on the animal welfare side 

is one of these. I don’t say that, but there are those, and I don’t 

see how even those that are argue that they are just for the humane treatment but we don’t want to eliminate animal agriculture 

can square that with some of the decisions that are now being 

made regarding how animal agriculture shall function for the humane treatment of animals. And when you specifically look at one 

form of livestock, horses, you are having a major effect on the economy of an industry that is $39 billion by itself, over $100 billion 

in economic activity, and when you remove the floor price for the 

unwanted horse, which is what you do when you remove the process buyer, you are reducing the value of all horses in the United 

States of which we have economists at universities that have estimated somewhere between $100 and $200 per horse. That is a 

pretty good blow to an industry. Now, there will be those that say 

well, that is just horses, horses are different. They are not different. Horses are livestock. They are different to you if you own 

the horse and we make it very clear, if you own a horse and do 

not wish it to be processed for human consumption, we are for you, 

don’t sell your horse, euthanize it yourself, take it to a renderer. 

If you are more comfortable having your horse piled on top of a 

garbage heap after it has been euthanized rather than having it 

consumed in countries that do it, we are for you. That is called private property rights. All we are saying is, it is a slippery slope, and 

remember, the same folks are out to eliminate zoos because it is 

inhumane to keep animals in pens. You have to be the judge. And 

I just say, let us be careful before we take the first step down the 

slippery slope. Let us have everyone with a smile on their face acknowledge, I am for the humane treatment of animals. I believe 

Wayne Pacelle, you will hear from the Humane Society, is for the 

humane treatment of animals. I believe that. But we have different 

opinions of what the facts are of humane treatment. That is the political side of this that has really gotten on a slippery slope and 

with the 300 million Americans who only see what you have seen 

on your Internet and the movies that are being shown about how 

16

horses are slaughtered, how they are brought to market, how they 

are mistreated, if that is all you see, you tell me where the votes 

are going to be and why you are having such a difficulty with your 

own constituency dealing with this one. And when you have $100 

million to spend on the campaigns and the politics and the media, 

get ready for the slippery slope to take off. 

Mr. WALBERG. I appreciate the response. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the lady from Ohio, Congresswoman 

Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you, sir. I didn’t have any questions. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay. That is fine. That completes our first round 

of questions. Does anybody on either side have other questions? 

Okay. With that, I would thank you, Mr. Stenholm, we appreciate your testimony and we would ask that the second panel would 

come to the table. 

I thank the second panel for coming to the table, and by matter 

of introduction, we have beginning Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President 

and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, Washington, 

D.C. Welcome, Wayne. Glad to have you here. Dr. Gail Golab, 

Ph.D., DVM, Associate Director of Animal Welfare Division, American Veterinary Medical Association. We have Mr. Steven Leary, 

DVM, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Veterinary Affairs, Washington 

University, on behalf of the National Association of Biomedical Research of St. Louis, Missouri. We have Mr. Gene Gregory, President of United Egg Producers from Alpharetta, Georgia. We have 

Mr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Owner, Sonoma Foie Gras, on behalf of 

Artisan Farmers Alliance, Sonoma, California. And last but not 

least, finally, Mr. David Martosko, Director of Research, Center for 

Consumer Freedom of Washington, DC. 

So with that, we welcome you all. We appreciate you being here. 

We would like for you, Mr. Pacelle, to please begin when you are 

ready. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE 

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC. 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting me to testify. I am Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the 

Humane Society of the United States. 

I feel a little bit unusual in this circumstance, having heard Congressman Stenholm. Congressman Stenholm is a respected member 

of the community in Washington and Texas, served a long time, 

but what he did was seek to caricature animal advocates. I represent just one organization, one of 10,000 organizations that exist 

in this country, charitable organizations that work to alleviate suffering and protect animals from needless cruelty. Just our organization has 10 million supporters, which is one of every 30 Americans in the country. Mr. Stenholm and some of the others whom 

you will hear from today are seeking to caricature the entire cause 

of animal protection as a bunch of folks who want to stop zoos and 

meat eating and all animal research, and it is false. If you look at 

the issues that the Humane Society works on, we work on particular abuses that are out of step with prevailing public sentiment 

17

in this country. Look at every issue that we are behind in this Congress and you will see strong support among the American public 

for our position. Unfortunately, historically, and we hope that this 

committee marks a break from the past. This committee has completely abrogated its responsibility to have proper oversight on animal welfare issues. This is the first hearing on animal welfare 

other than an animal fighting bill in 2000 that has been held on 

production agriculture since 1989, 18 years, and this committee 

which has authorized and responsibility for animal welfare programs hasn’t had any action on these issues. The USDA unfortunately has also grown very close to the industry and we have an 

unregulated situation where there are basically no protections for 

farm animals at the Federal level in production agriculture. There 

is a humane slaughter act that the humane community pushed and 

there is a transport law that was first passed in 1873 that the 

USDA had not enforced until HSUS pushed for its active enforcement. 

I just want to mention a couple of examples to talk about how 

our policies truly are sensible and how we hear this hysterical exaggeration about the consequences of the adoption of our preferred 

set of policies. One is the issue of gestation crates. These are 2-foot 

by 7-foot cages that breeding sows are housed in for their entire 

gestation period, for the pre-birthing period, and they are taken out 

of the gestation crate just before giving birth and then they give 

birth in a farrowing crate, then they are put back into the gestation crate. They may endure 7, 8, 9, 10 successive pregnancies in 

a 2-foot by 7-foot cage in which they cannot turn around. These are 

curious animals that like to root around in the mud. When this 

issue was put to voters in Florida, when it was put to voters in Arizona, the industry, Mr. Stenholm and others said this will be the 

demise of the pork industry, it will be the end of animal agriculture 

in terms of hog production. And what we have seen after voters 

overwhelmingly approved the measures in both States was that the 

largest pig producer in the world, Smithfield, has voluntarily 

agreed to phase out gestation crates over a 10-year period. 

We also heard apocalyptic comments about downed animal protection. You know, downers are livestock too sick or injured to walk 

and a number of members of this House have pushed to stop the 

policy of abusing downed animals and dragging them into slaughter houses for processing for human consumption. It was Mr. Stenholm on the Floor of the House who said in 2003 that no sick animal, no BSE-positive animal, no mad cow can ever get into the food 

supply, and it was just 6 months later that a downer cow with BSE 

found its way into the food supply. The consequence of that was 

pretty severe but it wasn’t severe in terms of the animal welfare 

issues. It was severe in terms of the economic impact of the industry because 44 nations closed their doors to American beef products. The USDA passed an administrative rule to ban downers in 

2003 and we have seen no adverse impact of a downer ban being 

imposed. 

And we can go on and on. This canard about horse slaughter, 

there were 350,000 horses being slaughtered in the early 1990s. 

Now there is about 100,000. Where did these 250,000 horses go? 

They have been absorbed into this country because there are a netVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:30 Jan 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39809.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
18

work of sanctuaries and there is also the matter of responsible 

ownership of animals and how people who are taking animals, certainly horses, have a responsibility to care for them, and euthanasia is an option on site rather than transporting them 1,000 or 

1,500 miles. 

In terms of specific policy proposals, Mr. Chairman, there is a 

bill called the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act that deals 

with some of the worst abuses and intensive confinement livestock 

agriculture including gestation crates, veal crates and battery 

cages. We are seeing tremendous change in the private sector already. I have mentioned some of the public policy changes. 

Maple Leaf Foods, the largest pig producer in Canada has said 

it will stop using gestation crates. Two of the largest veal producers, Strauss Farms and Marcho Farms, have said that they are 

going to stop crating young male veal calves, and the head of 

Strauss called the crates inhumane and archaic. 

In terms of battery cage production, which is the predominant 

egg laying system, each bird under the United Egg Producers 

standards gets 2/3 of an 8-1/2 by 11 sheet of paper to live her life 

in, 8-1/2 by 11, 67 square inches. This is the living space for these 

animals. Now, we can talk all about radical animal rights activism, 

we can hear caricatures of the animal welfare movement but the 

fact is, if this is acceptable as a living space for an egg laying hen, 

then, this is not he world I am living in. The public is appalled by 

the idea that animals are intensively confined for such long periods 

during their lifetimes. We are advocating that the Congress include 

poultry under humane slaughter. 

Mr. BOSWELL. The rest of your testimony, Mr. Pacelle, will be 

placed in the record but time has expired and we appreciate your 

enthusiasm, so——

Mr. PACELLE. May I just close? 

Mr. BOSWELL. You may make a short closing remark if you wish 

and then we will move on. 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you. We are very hopeful that the Congress 

will include an animal welfare title in the farm bill. This is an 

issue that has been long ignored. When the committee ignores it, 

the issue gets addressed in other committees in this Congress. It 

is time for this committee to address these issues. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. 

Dr. Golab. 

STATEMENT OF DR. GAIL C. GOLAB, PH.D., DVM, ASSOCIATE 

DIRECTOR, ANIMAL WELFARE DIVISION, AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, SCHAUMBURG, ILLINOIS 

Ms. GOLAB. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on behalf of the 

American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA comprises 

more than 75,000 members and represents approximately 86 percent of the Nation’s practicing veterinarians. Animal welfare is of 

primary importance to the veterinary profession and therefore primary importance to the AVMA. 

19

This hearing will highlight some differences that exist among 

stakeholders with regard to how we believe animals should be used 

and cared for. An important underlying truth, however, is that 

most people in the United States believe it is acceptable to use animals for food and fiber as long as the welfare of those animals is 

good. 

But what is good welfare? When evaluating animal welfare, it is 

important to be clear what people mean. Animal producers tend to 

cite elements of good health and performance as evidence of good 

welfare whereas animal activists are often most comfortable when 

animals are allowed to live in natural environments. This dichotomy of use is a result of different experiences leading to different 

value frameworks. The AVMA believes animal welfare science is an 

important tool that can be used successfully to bridge these dichotomies. 

Although the degree of importance attributed to each element 

making up an animal’s welfare state may vary, the AVMA believes 

no assessment is complete unless all elements are considered. It is 

not satisfactory, for example, to judge the welfare of an animal on 

the basis of its physical health without regard to whether it is suffering or frustrated nor is it appropriate to conclude that an animal 

that can engage in species-typical behaviors has a good state of 

welfare without also evaluating its health and biologic function. 

Veterinarians by virtue of their broad-based training are extraordinarily well positioned to integrate and bring the relevant elements of animal welfare science to the table to assist key decision 

makers like yourselves in making good decisions. 

Two issues currently under the microscope of animal welfare advocates can be used to demonstrate the power of animal welfare 

science to help make decisions and ensure positive animal welfare 

outcomes. These issues are space allowances and cages housing laying hens and usage of station stalls to house pregnant sows. With 

respect to cages, the egg industry pulled together a multidisciplinary, multistakeholder advisory committee and charged them 

with making recommendations for revision of that industry’s animal care guidelines. After conducting a scientific review, this advisory committee suggested cage space needed to be increased. By 

phasing in space allowances according to science-based parameters, 

hen welfare improved and economic benefits were also realized. 

This experience taught us two important things: first, that science 

could be used to help define and resolve an animal welfare problem, and second, that science should be used to help draft animal 

care guidelines rather than being called in after the fact. 

The use of gestation stalls is an example of where animal welfare 

science can point out fallacies and simplistic solutions. Comprising 

individuals representing expertise in multiple disciplines and multiple stakeholder interests, the AVMA’s task force on the housing 

of pregnant sows conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on housing systems with the intent of determining 

whether gestation stalls were appropriate. In this case, the science 

couldn’t identify a particular system as being unequivocally superior but it did provide information suggesting that simply banning 

gestation stalls was probably not a quick and easy solution to improving sow welfare overall. 

20

Animal welfare is an increasing public interest but the American 

public has little direct connection with the actual process of raising 

animals for food and fiber. As a result, sometimes people become 

fixated on forcing changes that they think will improve animal welfare when in reality that might not be the case. At the same time, 

the public’s desire for inexpensive, high-quality food products can 

create conflicts between human and animal interests and the industry’s efforts to meet those demands and remain profitable. Pulling together societal expectations and industry needs means that 

guidelines for animal care must be both science-based and dynamic. 

Common sense and science depend on each other to reach sound 

conclusions on animal welfare. In acting on recommendations regarding animal welfare, the AVMA hopes Congress will ensure 

that, one, sound science serves as a basis for any recommended 

interventions; two, actions are consistent with the reason for the 

intervention and are based on a comprehensive risk assessment; 

three, responses are proportionate and a complete assessment of 

costs and benefits is performed; four, decisions are made in partnership with key stakeholders; and five, resulting actions will promote a sustainable agricultural industry as well as meet societal 

expectations. I have submitted a written statement with additional 

comments and materials for the subcommittee to consider and I 

ask that this information be included in the record of these proceedings. 

On behalf of my profession and our association, I sincerely thank 

you for the opportunity to appear today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Golab appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. I recognize Mr. Leary. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. LEARY, DVM, ASSISTANT VICE 

CHANCELLOR, VETERINARY AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 

Mr. LEARY. Thank you for allowing me to testify today and for 

conducting this hearing on animal welfare. By the way, Mr. Chairman, I was born and raised in Des Moines and graduated from 

Iowa State. It is nice to see you here. 

I am testifying today on behalf of the National Association for 

Biomedical Research. NABR is the only national nonprofit organization dedicated solely to advocating sound public policy that recognizes the vital role of humane animal use in biomedical research, 

higher education and product safety testing. Founded in 1979, 

NABR provides the unified voice for the scientific community on 

legislative and regulatory matters affecting laboratory animal research. NABR’s membership is comprised of more than 300 public 

and private universities, medical and veterinary schools, teaching 

hospitals, voluntary health agencies, professional societies, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and other animal research-related firms. 

Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every medical advance of the last century for both human and animal health. 

Ample proof of the success of animal research can be found in the 

21

vast body of Nobel Prize-winning work in physiology and medicine 

where 68 awardees since 1901 have relied at least in part on animal research. Thanks to animal research, many diseases that once 

killed millions of people every year are either treatable or have 

been eradicated all together. Six of the discoveries related to cancer 

using animals were recognized with the Nobel Prize, among them 

bone marrow transplantation, cloning of the first gene and the discovery that a normal cell could have latent cancer genes. Animal 

research for animal health has also resulted in many remarkable 

life-saving and life-extending treatments for animals. Pacemakers, 

artificial joints, organ transplants and vaccines contribute to 

longer, happier and healthier lives for animals. Through research 

with animals, sciences are learning more every day. 

Key findings from a recent national public opinion survey on animal research found overwhelming support. In fact, 81 percent 

agree with medical and scientific research using laboratory animals 

if they believe it will help alleviate suffering from a serious disease. 

Animal research is still a requirement. 

Research on animals is in many cases an obligation that prevents 

humans from being used as medical guinea pigs. The Declaration 

of Helsinki states that medical research on human subjects should 

be based on accurately performed laboratory and animal experimentation. Responsible regulation is a very important component 

of oversight to instill public confidence in animal research. Congress already has provided the mechanism for assurances of proper 

care and treatment of laboratory animals with the 1966 enactment 

of the Animal Welfare Act and multiple subsequent amendments. 

For example, the 1985 amendments require the establishment of 

the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, or IACUC. The 

IACUC, which is taken very seriously by each research institution, 

is an internal committee that is charged with reviewing, approving 

and monitoring research protocols. IACUC approval for a proposed 

research project must be acquired before any government funds can 

be secured and any animals used. 

Many institutions have gone above and beyond what is required 

of them by the law. Ninety-nine of the top 100 NIH awardee institutions have voluntarily sought accreditation with the association 

for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care. 

In addition, a number of non-animal procedures and tests have 

been developed to supplement animal research. Computer modeling 

and in vitro testing serve as valuable adjuncts to basic animal research but there is still no replacement for animal research. 

In conclusion, we are all challenged with that delicate balance of 

ensuring the public trust and the highest standard of care for laboratory animals with a regulatory mandate that still allows the 

freedom of inquiry so important to medical discovery. We who are 

directly involved with animal research share this challenge and 

concern. In fact, it is that very concern which has drawn many of 

us to choose careers in veterinary medicine or medical research. We 

too have family members who contract diseases. We too have pets 

that become ill. For these reasons, we are dedicated to finding ways 

to cure both human and animal ailments. In the words of the esteemed Dr. Michael E. DeBakey, chancellor emeritus of the Baylor 

College of Medicine and director of the DeBakey Heart Center: 

22

‘‘These scientists, veterinarians, physicians, surgeons and others 

who do research in animal labs are as much concerned about the 

care of the animals as anyone can be. Their respect for the dignity 

of life and compassion for the sick and disabled in fact is what motivated them to search for ways of relieving the pain and suffering 

caused by diseases.’’

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee 

again for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Leary appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Leary. We will recognize Mr. 

Gregory. 

STATEMENT OF GENE GREGORY, PRESIDENT, UNITED EGG 

PRODUCERS, ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA 

Mr. GREGORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gene 

Gregory and I am the President of United Egg Producers. I have 

worked for UEP for the past 25 years. Earlier in my career, I was 

in the egg business working for Corn Belt Hatcheries in central Illinois for more than 20 years. About 90 percent of all the eggs in 

the United States are produced by our UEP members. We are a 

farm cooperative and we also administer a program of animal husbandry standards called the UEP Certified Program, which I will 

discuss later. 

UEP prides itself on being a forward-looking, proactive organization. We have helped our industry respond to environmental concerns, animal diseases and other challenges. We approach animal 

welfare in the same spirit. It is increasingly important to our customers in food retailing and food service and to American consumers. Unfortunately, this is also a subject that lends itself to 

emotional, unsubstantiated allegations and extreme tactics. 

If we reduce animal welfare to emotion or subject views of what 

feels right, we will base the care of animals of nothing more than 

opinion and endless argument. That is not good enough. Instead, 

we need to use science. That is why in 1999 UEP commissioned an 

unpaid scientific advisory committee to review the animal welfare 

standards we had at the time and advise us about science-based 

changes we should make. The chair of that committee, Dr. Jeffrey 

Armstrong, is a dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State University. He brought together nine 

other scientists and together they recommended significant changes 

in egg production practices. Today about 85 percent of our industry 

has implemented these standards including an increase in the 

amount of space for each bird in cage production systems with the 

increase ranging from 26 to 40. Dr. Armstrong has written on behalf of the entire committee saying we believe these guidelines set 

the baseline for humane care. 

The committee’s recommendations became what is now the UEP 

Certified Program. This program features a trademark seal approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the USDA that producers that can place on their egg cartons if they adhere to the 

UEP Certified guidelines. Every participating producer is subject to 

an annual third-party audit by the USDA’s Agriculture Marketing 

Service or Validus Services, and if a producer wants to be a part 

23

of the UEP Certified program, all of that producer’s operations 

must conform to our animal care standards. We are confident that 

our program reflects the best science. Many of the scientists on our 

committee have also helped developed standards for major food 

service chains such as McDonald’s and Burger King. Our program 

also has been endorsed by the Food Marketing Institute representing the Nations’ major food retailers and the National Council of Chain Restaurants. 

At UEP, we are in favor of consumers having choices including 

cage-free, free-range and organic eggs which some of our members 

produce. However, we vigorously dispute the proposition that only 

free-range or cage-free production is humane. We disagree with 

that view and so does our scientific advisory committee. Cage housing systems protect birds from predators and diseases such a highly pathogenic avian influenza. Cage systems also may reduce pecking and other aggressive behavior including cannibalism. The way 

eggs are handled in cage systems may also reduce the chances that 

the outside of the egg will be contaminated with its feces, offering 

a food safety benefit. If consumer choices are restricted as some 

animal rights activists would like to do, the consequences would be 

higher food costs for low-income Americans and a greater strain on 

our land resources. If all U.S. production had to be free range, consumers would have to pay an additional $4.65 billion every year for 

eggs and we would need to find additional land resources roughly 

the size of the State of Delaware. 

Frankly, there is nothing our industry could do short of all declaring bankruptcy and leaving the farm that would satisfy some 

of the activist groups. UEP has been a target of these groups, even 

as we have tried to implement the best science-based guidelines for 

the care of laying hens. 

UEP asks the members of this subcommittee to help us educate 

your colleagues about the importance of animal agriculture and the 

shortsightedness of legislation that would harm our industries. We 

ask you to resist amendments to the 2007 Farm Bill that would 

harm animal agriculture including efforts to set new and arbitrary 

standards for Federal procurement. The marketplace is the appropriate place to establish science-based standards that will allow 

consumers to make their own choices. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gregory appears at the conclusion of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Gregory. 

Mr. Gonzalez. 

STATEMENT OF GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, OWNER, SONOMA 

FOIE GRAS, ON BEHALF OF ARTISAN FARMERS ALLIANCE, 

SONOMA, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Good morning, Chairman Boswell, Ranking Member Hayes and members of the subcommittee. My name is Guillermo Gonzalez. I am a farmer and the owner of Sonoma Foie Gras. 

I am here today on behalf of the Artisan Farmers Alliance, a new 

group that represents the three farms in the United States that 

produce foie gras. Thank you for the opportunity to set the record 

straight about our farming practices and to share with you the 

24

struggle of our three small farms to stay in business in the face of 

an aggressive assault by extremist animal activists. 

Foie gras is French for ‘‘fat liver.’’ It dates back to ancient Egypt 

where they depicted the hand feeding of waterfowl in colorful relief 

paintings. Over the centuries, it became an integral part of French 

cooking. As you may be able to tell from my accent, I am not 

French. I was born and raised in El Salvador. In the 1980s I moved 

to France to learn traditional foie gras farming techniques. Then 

in 1986, I moved to Sonoma County, California, and began to 

produce foie gras and other duck products. I operate a very small 

farm set in a walnut orchard southeast of Stockton in California’s 

great Central Valley. Last year I raised 50,000 ducks. To put this 

in perspective, a modern poultry plant processes more birds in a 

single 8-hour shift than I do in an entire year. 

On my farm, we still use very traditional methods and I am 

proud of our operations. As anyone who has ever worked in animal 

agriculture will tell you, there is no one who cares more about animal welfare than farmers. My entire livelihood depends on the 

health of my flocks. The peer-reviewed scientific studies support 

our methods and conclude that the feeding does not create abnormal stress in ducks, and in each of the last 2 years the American 

Veterinary Medical Association has reviewed the foie gras issue 

and rejected calls to label it inhumane. Last year the AVMA sent 

a blue ribbon panel to review firsthand the operations on a foie 

gras farm. 

While we farmers focus on the objective science, we are attacked 

on the basis of emotional appeals. Of course we understand that 

some people will choose not to eat our product just as some people 

will choose not to eat beef or chicken or fish. That is their right. 

But what about the rights of other individuals to make their own 

decisions about what they do or do not eat? 

Huge multimillion-dollar organizations are trying to limit consumer choices and drive us out of business. They have tried to ban 

the sale of our USDA inspected and approved products in many jurisdictions and they have filed countless lawsuits against us in an 

effort to drive us out of our land and into bankruptcy. In many 

cases, activists have gone well beyond the law in their zeal to impose their views on others. My own farm and the two other U.S. 

foie gras farms, both in upstate New York, have been broken into 

and vandalized repeatedly. They trespass, damage our property, 

steal our animals and sometimes do much worse. 

In 2002, my wife and I took our retirement savings from years 

of hard work and decided to open a restaurant in Sonoma, California. As the construction was in progress, violent animal activists 

broke into the restaurant’s historic building, filled the drains with 

concrete and turned on the water faucets. They scrawled on the 

wall ‘‘stop or be stopped, death, scum, torturer.’’ Perhaps even 

worse for me as an immigrant, they spray-painted ‘‘Go home.’’ The 

restaurant was ruined and we lost our savings. Bad as it was, I am 

lucky compared to my business partner. Activists stalked him and 

his family including his small child. Secretly, they videotaped them 

in their daily routines. One day his wife found a wrapped package 

containing the tape in their front yard with a note saying ‘‘We are 

watching you.’’

25

These stories highlight a disturbing trend. Acting in the name of 

animal rights, some seem to have forgotten the human rights of 

farmers. Animal rights groups need to realize that their inflammatory rhetoric has real consequences. They call me a torturer. Mr. 

Baur’s own written testimony today equates animal agriculture 

with slavery. 

This subject of animal welfare needs less heat and more light. 

We need a discussion based on science, fact, reason and experience 

rather than emotional anthropomorphic appeals. This is increasingly important as fewer and fewer Americans have a personal experience with agriculture. The truth is that food doesn’t come from 

supermarkets. It comes from the hard work of farmers and we 

ought to respect farmers for the hard work they do, not demonize 

them. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez appears at the conclusion of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. We would like to recognize now Mr. Martosko. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MARTOSKO, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, 

CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM, WASHINGTON, DC. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee for inviting me here today. I am David Martosko, Director of Research at the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom. 

We are based here in Washington and it is managed by Berman 

and Company, a public affairs and association management firm. 

Support for the center comes from members of the general public 

and from private industry including restaurant and food companies. 

I am very happy to see so many people here today who actually 

know something about animal agriculture but I must urge you to 

be skeptical of organizations that propose to extend human rights 

to animals. Groups like these do include the Humane Society of the 

United States, Farm Sanctuary, People for the Ethical Treatment 

of Animals, PETA, and PETA’s quasi-medical affiliate, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. These groups are all led 

by strict vegans who discourage Americans from eating any meat 

no matter how humanely it is raised. Now, that is not a caricature, 

that is a fact. When the topic of discussion is how to make livestock 

farming better, the complaints of radical vegans should be seen for 

what they are, an attempt to dismantle animal agriculture, not improve it. Their true agenda is to put livestock farmers out of business and we should all recognize their ulterior motives. 

Let me express this to you in political terms. What if Rush 

Limbaugh suggested that the Democratic National Committee 

should invite him into its planning meetings or what if Cindy 

Sheehan put her own name forward to moderate a Republican 

Party debate? Now, the last thing Cindy Sheehan wants is for the 

GOP to improve itself. She wants its marginalized and made less 

powerful. The same is true about Mr. Limbaugh and the DNC and 

it is also true of HSUS and the entire livestock food chain including 

farmers, ranchers, packers, restaurants and retailers. Encouraging 

the input of people who want to crush you is a strange way of seekVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:30 Jan 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39809.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
26

ing sensible reform. And keep in mind that despite its name, the 

Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with any local 

humane society anywhere in the United States. Now, few Americans know this. So HSUS uses public goodwill that it doesn’t deserve in order to raise millions, and all that money gives HSUS the 

power to unfairly attack just about every segment of animal agriculture. 

I was really pleased to hear Mr. Gonzalez speaking just before 

me, and look what has happened in the case of foie gras. HSUS 

and Farm Sanctuary aren’t pushing for animal welfare reform, 

they want abolition. They are trying to outlaw a kind of animal 

protein that many people enjoy. Now, I have never tasted foie gras 

but who are these people to decide I shouldn’t have the chance to 

try it? When zealots ban books because of their politics, millions of 

us rise up. Why isn’t banning food for political reasons viewed the 

same way? And what is next? A speakeasy where a secret password 

will be required to get a veal cutlet? Wouldn’t that be ironic too? 

Veal farmers spend tons of money paying veterinarians to audit 

their farms. They provide a purpose for male dairy calves that 

would otherwise be destroyed at birth. HSUS and Farm Sanctuary 

ought to be promoting veal but they would rather see it disappear 

to make room for a vegan utopia and besides, it is good for fundraising. 

In 2005, after the Humane Society of the U.S. released its guide 

to vegetarian eating, one manager of the group told the animal 

rights movement magazine that his organization’s goals include, 

and I quote, ‘‘promoting vegetarian eating.’’ And Mr. Pacelle said 

HSUS was ‘‘doing a guide to vegetarian eating to really make the 

case for it.’’ Just last week HSUS ranked U.S. cities according to 

what it calls a humane index, and one part of the index which they 

call humane eats, it is a scorecard, it judges how humane a city’s 

dining options are by counting just one thing: the number of vegetarian restaurants per capita. That is all they care about. HSUS 

is judging that only meatless eating should be considered humane. 

You see, no matter how much farmers take their animals’ welfare 

into account, animal rights leaders won’t be satisfied until all animal protein disappears from our diets. The truth is that HSUS and 

PETA share the same long-term goals: no meat, no dairy, no animal ag, period, more rights for animals, fewer for you and me. 

HSUS is basically PETA with a nicer wristwatch and fewer naked 

interns. 

Now, please don’t misunderstand me. My organization is not an 

anti-vegetarian group. We are interested in protecting all dietary 

choices including those of the tiny segment of Americans who 

choose to be vegetarians. It is a free country. But when groups with 

huge budgets mislead Americans about food they don’t believe we 

should be allowed to choose, that is not fair. For instance, right 

now on HSUS’s website, they overstate the fat content of chicken 

by over 500 percent in order to discourage people from eating it. 

That is not fair. Now, I can almost understand why animal rights 

groups spread this kind of misinformation. If you believe that a 

veal calf or a breeding sow or a lab rate is worth the same as my 

mother or your daughter, then of course it is remarkably easy to 

invent moral justifications for cutting factual corners or breaking 

27

election finance law as Farm Sanctuary did hundreds of times in 

the 2002 Florida elections, or even in the case of ones spokesperson 

for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, advocating 

the murder of people who don’t agree with you. 

I will leave you with this last thought. Congress could require 

U.S. farmers to supply every pig, chicken, duck and cow with private rooms, daily rubdowns, video iPods, organic meals catered by 

Wolfgang Puck. You could do all of this but it still wouldn’t satisfy 

activists who actually believe farm animals have the right not to 

be eaten no matter how they were raised. 

Thank you very much for inviting my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martosko appears at the conclusion of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Martosko. You made several 

pretty strong statements. Are you saying that Mr. Pacelle and his 

organization do not want any human consumption of meat or animal? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Yes, absolutely, and their own literature and 

their own website points this out. Mr. Pacelle said that the reason 

they came up with the vegetarians guide was——

Mr. BOSWELL. I am reclaiming my time. Thank you. 

Mr. Pacelle, is that correct? 

Mr. PACELLE. No, it is absolutely incorrect as are a laundry list 

of other statements from Mr. Martosko, who today is attacking the 

Humane Society. On other days he attacks Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving for its efforts to keep people who are inebriated off the 

road, public health——

Mr. BOSWELL. You are expanding. Because of time—thank you. 

So you——

Mr. MARTOSKO. Mr. Chairman, we support a program——

Mr. BOSWELL. Reclaiming my time. Hold on a second. I think you 

mentioned several times in your testimony that the organization 

prefers more humane methods of raising and slaughtering animals 

for consumption, so is it therefore true that the society has no problem with those who eat meat? 

Mr. PACELLE. Ninety-five percent of our members are meat eaters, Mr. Chairman, and——

Mr. BOSWELL. So you have no problem with that? 

Mr. PACELLE. No. If you look at the——

Mr. BOSWELL. Let me move on to another question because of 

time. Thank you very much. 

I was a little surprised in earlier testimonies regarding the 

amount of dollars accumulated by your organization and so a question comes to my mind, do you have sanctuaries scattered across 

the country? Do you have investments in those? 

Mr. PACELLE. Mr. Chairman, we have $5 and $10 and $15 and 

$20 donors, Americans from every State in the country, and as I 

mentioned, 10 million of them. They scrutinize all programs. All of 

our programs are advertised on our website and other materials. 

This is a program—Mr. Martosko and others are always fond of 

saying we don’t care for animals. This is an entire guide about out 

animal shelter——

Mr. BOSWELL. No, come on. The question is, do you have sanctuaries for animals across the country or in——

28

Mr. PACELLE. We have three facilities that are entirely animalrelated facilities. What we do is, we help shelters run better across 

the country. We don’t run every shelter. There are thousands of 

them across the country. 

Mr. BOSWELL. But you do have shelters? 

Mr. PACELLE. We have several different kinds of shelters. We 

have an entire veterinary services program that goes into rural 

areas and last year handled 40,000 dogs and cats in the most rural 

areas in the country, just that one program, which is a small part 

of our program. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay. Last question and I will yield to Mr. Hayes. 

It has been called to my attention that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in the last Congress that protected animal producers 

and families from extremist animal rights activists, your organization did not support that. Is that true? 

Mr. PACELLE. We have long opposed any illegal actions related 

to promoting animal protection. I have spoken on it publicly, and 

the people that have been condemned here today for going beyond 

the bounds of the law, we have joined in the course of criticizing. 

We were concerned about——

Mr. BOSWELL. So you did support the——

Mr. PACELLE. Because it had overreaching provisions that would 

have checked what we believe are protected speech activities. 

Mr. BOSWELL. So you did not support it then? 

Mr. PACELLE. Not in the form. We wanted to support it but we 

could not in the form that it was moved out of the committee. 

There was no markup on the bill. There was no hearing that allowed for any examination of those First Amendment questions. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay. 

Mr. PACELLE. But on our website is a strong statement against 

violent and illegal activities, and that is core to what we do. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will reserve my time. 

I don’t have a question right now. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Kagen. 

Mr. KAGEN. Thank you everyone for being here. With all this 

talk about food, I am getting kind of hungry, so I am going to just 

ask some yes or no questions. Mr. Pacelle, I would just like to 

know, do you live in the city or in the country? Because where I 

come from, if you come from the city you don’t understand things 

are born and die every day. If you live in the country, you understand the whole circle of life. Do you live in the city? 

Mr. PACELLE. I live in a suburb. 

Mr. KAGEN. And do you have pets in your house? 

Mr. PACELLE. Yes. 

Mr. KAGEN. And so you are not eating your pets, you are not recommending people eat their pets. Am I correct? 

Mr. PACELLE. Correct. 

Mr. KAGEN. And do you eat meat from chickens or eggs or cows? 

Mr. PACELLE. I am a vegetarian. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay. So you don’t feel comfortable with the slaughtering of animals for consumption. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. PACELLE. Excuse me? 

29

Mr. KAGEN. You don’t feel comfortable——

Mr. PACELLE. Personally? 

Mr. KAGEN. Correct. 

Mr. PACELLE. I choose not to do it, yes. 

Mr. KAGEN. Okay. And I am a person that feels that how you 

spend your money either as an individual or as a family or a Congress is a reflection of your values so in terms of percentages of 

your organization’s budget, what percent of your budget for the Humane Society do you spend for the direct care of animals? 

Mr. PACELLE. We have the highest rating on the charity navigator regulatory group. It is a 4-star rating. 

Mr. KAGEN. I don’t know what that regulatory group is but I am 

just looking for a number. 

Mr. PACELLE. We are not only a direct care group. Other groups 

would like us to spend all of our money caring for animals. We 

work on policy issues. We work on a wide range of other issues. We 

work with corporations——

Mr. KAGEN. I understand that, but what I am looking for is a 

number. 

Mr. PACELLE. I couldn’t give you the percentage. We spend millions on direct care—millions. We take in—last year we had revenues from average Americans, not from the government, of $130 

million. We spend millions on direct care of animals. 

Mr. KAGEN. So that would be 1 percent, 2 percent? 

Mr. PACELLE. No. It depends which year. During Katrina——

Mr. KAGEN. Maybe you could study that and get information to 

me. I would be very interested in that. 

Mr. PACELLE. I would be happy to. 

Mr. KAGEN. And that is the end of my time, so I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing. 

I appreciate the testimony. This is a big issue facing all of us as 

we go forward to write this new farm bill. 

As I listen to this testimony, I direct my first question to Mr. 

Pacelle and that is, I would ask you if you could point out the statutes that you are referring to when you state that it is illegal to 

consume horseflesh in America. 

Mr. PACELLE. I don’t believe I ever said that. 

Mr. KING. You are on record as doing that and so I would 

ask——

Mr. PACELLE. Well, I would like——

Mr. KING. —if you could provide—go ahead, Mr. Pacelle. 

Mr. PACELLE. No, I would like the context of the comment. It is 

often that people take comments out of context. 

Mr. KING. Okay. This is a context of a complete article that you 

have posted on a website that has no source titled ‘‘King Watch’’ 

and so it is some of the information that you provided in my district that is by my position false and so I want to give you an opportunity to speak to that, but what I will do is, since you don’t 

know about the facts of this, I would ask you to submit to the 

record a correction of that if you had an opportunity to do some research, because I think it would be important for this panel to unVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:30 Jan 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39809.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
30

derstand if there are any laws out there in local jurisdictions that 

you might have been referring to at the time that might have 

passed, you might have forgotten. But I think we have established 

that case. 

But I wanted to spend my time more——

Mr. PACELLE. Well——

Mr. KING. Oh, no, I am completed. 

Mr. Martosko, your testimony here today was emphatic enough 

to I think bring everybody’s attention to this issue and I would ask 

you, as you looked at the organizations that you named that you 

say are determined to eliminate the livestock production industry 

in this country, there are a lot of threats to the livestock industry. 

We have diseases, 1, regulations, another, environmental regulations in particular. You have activist groups that are involved in 

legislation and litigation and BSE in the case of livestock. In fact, 

1 of the organizations states that swine is also a sort of BSE and 

I don’t find that to be the case. But of all of the things that threaten livestock, what is the greatest risk to the livestock industry in 

your opinion? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. In my opinion, the greatest risk right now is the 

possibility that the Congress will take seriously the advice of people who have sworn never to eat meat in crafting policy that will 

damage farming. 

Mr. KING. And I would ask Mr. Gonzalez, what is your greatest 

concern to the overall livestock industry or particularly your own, 

which I have not had the opportunity to try either. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. My greatest concern is that national market for 

meat and poultry products can break down if every city and town 

starts banning USDA-approved products. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Dr. Golab, at least the implication, if not the statement, has been 

introduced into this record or made that swine can carry BSE. Do 

you have any knowledge of that? 

Mr. GOLAB. I am not aware that there has been direct evidence 

of that up to this point in time. 

Mr. KING. In fact, I would point out there is a British study that 

fed concentrated quantities of BSE-carrying material to swine back 

when they had their—are you familiar with that study or at least 

have you read of it? 

Mr. GOLAB. No, I have not seen that study. 

Mr. KING. Any studies that I can find establish that there is no 

connection, no link, no transfer from swine to any other animal 

that might be subject to potentially BSE. 

I also wanted to make a point that was just interesting to me. 

Mr. Chairman, I think you might enjoy this. I look back on some 

of the things that pop up in my mind as we have these discussions 

about particularly animal husbandry and I am thinking about back 

in the 1970s when, and I am pulling this off of memory, but when 

John McKay was coaching the UCLA Bruins to national championships, they had a center there named Bill Walton, about 6′′11, a 

red-haired vegetarian. He did a good job as an All American center 

in basketball and I believe they won at least 1 national championship under him. He went on to play for the Seattle Supersonics, by 

my recollection. But his legs wouldn’t hold up and they went to 

31

specialist after specialist, and finally 1 particular doctor said to 

him, you need to increase your fluids, you can’t play 4 or 5 games 

a week; 1 or 2 was fine when you were in college but you are in 

the pros now and you need to increase your protein. So he recommended that Bill Walton increase his diet and take on beer and 

steak. Now, I am kind of in favor of those things and it is reported 

in the news that increasing that protein diet by going to that more 

protein concentrated including Pacific salmon was the first year 

that he had a good year and his legs held up. So I want to hold 

up the livestock industry and ensure that we can watch all kinds 

of competitive sports across America for a long time to come. I am 

interested in your industry and I am interested in our entertainment as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would yield back. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. King. 

Just a question to the panel at large, and I would like to ask 

this. I know I have gotten contacts, a lot of efforts made throughout 

the industry whether it is all different types of agriculture production that you are putting a lot of effort into the science and study 

to try to give appreciation to the needs of animals and healthy environment and so on. Does anybody want to make any comment of 

what you are actually doing to try to meet the concerns that have 

been brought up to us today? Anybody? 

Mr. PACELLE. Mr. Chairman, there was just a study that came 

out of Iowa State University from, it was the Leopold Center and 

Iowa State study about sows in hoop barns as an alternative to 

gestation crates, and I believe that sort of work is happening 

around the country and it is showing that not only is it more humane for the animals but it is more efficient in terms of the productivity of the pigs and it is better from a manure management 

standpoint. All this talk, you know, I never bring up vegetarianism. 

The only thing I ever bring up vegetarianism is when people like 

Mr. Martosko and others try to caricature us. If you look at every 

policy reform that we advance, it is about making life a little better 

for creatures who are less powerful than we are, and this research 

validates that elemental notion that has always governed agriculture before it got so intensive: give an animal a little space, give 

an animal a little opportunity to turn around. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Any other members? Mr. Gregory? 

Mr. GREGORY. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Gregory, just in your area because I am acquainted with a gentleman named Van Zetten. Now, you may know 

him, Blair, but he tells me, knowing this meeting was coming up 

we had a discussion and talked about the efforts that are made in 

the egg-laying industry to provide what the consumer wants, and 

I would like for you to address that a little bit from your perspective. Is it across the industry this happening or is Blair the only 

1 that is doing it? 

Mr. GREGORY. First of all, he is a friend of yours and mine so 

I will tell him that you asked about him. Blair is in the egg products business and his customers are companies that buy eggs as an 

ingredient to make other food items. So the ingredient-buying food 

manufacturing business has expressed an interest in their suppliers meeting animal welfare guidelines nearly at the speed by 

32

which retail groceries have done so. Our program is open and available and voluntarily people come to it and so we have said to Blair, 

whenever your customers are ready for it, we are happy to work 

with you, and we think that will happen one day. 

Could I say one other thing, Mr. Chairman, while we have the 

opportunity? I am really proud of our egg industry because I really 

believe that we can find solutions to most anything. Most any challenge that we are faced with, we try to resolve, and we try to do 

it in a way that we are critical about what we do. We think it is 

an example of how we have done it in animal welfare as with the 

science-based committee of which Dr. Golab is one of those committee members. We are doing the same thing now to try to solve 

environmental problems. We have a scientific panel headed by Dr. 

Hong Wa Shin at Iowa State. But you had asked a question earlier 

about what is our greatest concern. I actually believe we can solve 

almost every problem there is in our business except the thing that 

I am most fearful of is animal activists. They literally want to put 

all of animal agriculture out of business and they have broken into 

our facilities. They have presented distorted video, and when they 

talk about this university or this retailer or so and so making a 

switch to cage-free eggs, please understand, our producers also 

produce cage-free eggs and organic eggs and so we are not disparaging to any kind of system. We think there are advantages and 

disadvantages to all. But most retailers, most university dining facilities, et cetera, don’t willingly make those choices. They make 

those choices after having been intimidated by some of the animal 

activist groups that are in this room today. So make sure that you 

understand that this doesn’t happen just out of the goodwill of the 

people to do this. It comes through intimidation of the marketplace. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PACELLE. Mr. Chairman, can I answer that since it is kind 

of directed at us? 

Mr. BOSWELL. My time has run out. I will see if Mr. Hayes has 

a question and we will go from there. 

Mr. Hayes? 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Golab, there are some implications beyond what we have 

talked about today. For example, in your medical veterinary opinion, ending the use of antibiotics in the livestock and poultry industry, how would such a ban, a blanket ban, affect the welfare of livestock on our farms and ranches and other associated issues? 

Ms. GOLAB. I am sorry. I didn’t hear the last part of that. 

Mr. HAYES. Okay. Blanket ban on antibiotics in livestock, what 

other implication besides the livestock, include that as well, would 

be created by banning antibiotics in treating livestock? 

Ms. GOLAB. Well, if you take a look at what happened over in 

Europe when a certain proportion of antibiotics administered to 

livestock were prohibited, what you saw was that the amount of 

antibiotics administered to livestock for treatment purposes went 

up considerably. At the same time what you did not see is human 

resistance go down, which is what the primary concern has been 

with the use of antibiotics in livestock. What we see as veterinarians is increased disease, increased mortality. That is our principal 

33

concern at that point when you start eliminating preventive uses 

in particular. 

Mr. HAYES. I appreciate the comment and I think the point to 

be made is, some of these extreme positions that are held have not 

only unintended consequences but they are not victimless positions. 

Mr. Gonzalez, we applaud you for your efforts as a small businessman, immigrant to this country. You have raised some issues. 

Mr. Gregory has also raised issues. I think it is important because 

this Congress has passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 

which if you think about, we should have never had to do because 

people should never have done the things that prompted us to have 

to do this, and I am particularly sensitive to you as an individual 

and a farmer, not an association. Are there other instances—and 

by the way, organizations are opposed and lobbied against the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which is somewhat hypocritical with 

some of the statements that have been made here today. Have you 

had other experiences that you did not mention in your limited 

time for testimony that you think are valuable to this ongoing discussion? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, I want to support Mr. Gregory’s statement 

in terms of changes being made in the marketplace as a result of 

intimidation and coercion. The particular case happening with the 

foie gras market is that all the restaurants are being blanketed 

with letters being sent by these organizations telling them that if 

they do not withdraw the product from their menus, they are going 

to be picketed, and obviously no restaurant, especially high-end 

restaurants, enjoys or wants their customers to be bothered with 

picketers on the outside and this is happening on a regular basis. 

Obviously, and this is probably the most important part of my testimony is, an invitation to these animal rights groups to tone down, 

to dial down their inflammatory rhetoric because nobody can tell 

when—it takes only one person to snap and it is very risky at the 

individual level, especially in our case of the foie gras producers 

that we are very clearly identified, and the way they portray us in 

the public eye is really putting our lives and our families at risk. 

So I made a respectful invitation to civility in this issue in order 

to tone down the rhetoric because it can have real consequences. 

The hate mail that I have received is regular. Just before the moment I was taking off to come to this meeting, I received one that 

you don’t know who is going to be ticked off by this. I can go on 

and on but basically that is my main message. 

Mr. HAYES. I appreciate your presence here today. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. HAYES. The business of hate mail is extremely serious, but 

the fact that your restaurant was destroyed before it was ever completed kind of eliminated the picketing and I think it is important 

that the public knows that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask Dr. Golab, as a person who works with animals and 

handles the science side of this issue, what does current science say 

34

about the treatment of sows, cows, cattle and other animals that 

are processed for consumption? 

Ms. GOLAB. Well, I think that the single biggest issue that we 

take home, and this is important to me because I concentrate 

across issues rather than concentrating on a particular species, basically what it comes down to is that every single production system has its advantages and disadvantages, and one of our biggest 

concerns I think as an association and as a profession is when you 

take those systems and you try and piecemeal them, and what I 

mean by that is, you take pieces of a particular system and you try 

and take actions on those pieces rather than considering the system as a whole. When you do that, you can create situations where 

you have changed a piece of a system but the rest of the production 

has not caught up with a change. For example, if you were to suddenly move from stall housing systems for gestating sows to group 

systems without consideration for the type of animal that you have 

in that system, the individuals that are managing those animals, 

how that animal is fed, you could actually make the welfare of that 

animal considerably worse rather than better, and that is pretty 

true across the system irrespective of whatever piece of it you select. And so our great wish is that these would be considered as 

comprehensive systems, and if changes need to be made, because 

the public is uncomfortable with something, do it in such a way 

that we phase in those changes and we make sure that we retain 

the advantages of the particular system that we are presently 

using but resolve its disadvantages. 

Mr. WALBERG. How do we compare with other nations? 

Ms. GOLAB. I am sorry. What? 

Mr. WALBERG. How do we compare with other nations in the 

handling, the processing, the care for animals? 

Ms. GOLAB. I think in terms of other nations, you have to look 

at it in the context of what the philosophy is in those nations. The 

fact of the matter is, the way that animals are viewed differs and 

it is also a fact that depending upon the amount of resources that 

you have, depends how much you can devote to things like animal 

welfare. Certainly I think in comparison with industrialized systems, we are certainly among the best, if not the best, at what we 

do. Certainly in less industrialized nations, they are doing the best 

they can, I think, but they have to devote their resources and allocate those as necessary, and right now they are not able to provide 

as much resource in terms of animal welfare. 

Mr. WALBERG. I want to move on with a few more questions as 

long as time remains here, and specifically asking Mr. Gregory, 

during the depression my father made it through as a chicken 

farmer and learned the value of the egg and I watched him in my 

young life train us in the value of the egg whether we liked it or 

not and sometimes devouring raw eggs because he still thought 

they were good for him, he lived to a ripe old age as well. But what 

do you do specifically to maintain the welfare of your animals, and 

especially considering these animals are your livelihood and source 

of revenue in the industry that you represent? I guess I am looking 

for specifics that show your intentions and show the lengths you 

go. 

35

Mr. GREGORY. Well, first of all, sir, I am not an egg producer. I 

am the President of the United Egg Producers Association. So I 

would speak for what we ask of our producers to do, and that is 

that we believe that egg production can be humanely produced in 

cages or in cage-free systems, organic systems, whatever it may be, 

providing that the farmer, the producer is following the recommendations of respected scientists that knows the well-being of 

the animals. We encourage all of our members to follow those kind 

of guidelines, and if they do, we believe that their animals will respond kindly to them as well. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Goodlatte, do you have questions? Or Mr. 

King has one. I will let you get organized, whichever. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I just want to set the record straight on something that concerns me greatly because animal welfare obviously is 

a very important issue but also food safety is a very important 

issue as well and it was asserted by Mr. Pacelle in his testimony 

that there was a downer cow with BSE that got into our food supply. That is absolutely false, and one of the reasons why we have 

the system that we have to protect consumers is to make sure that 

kind of thing does not happen. In his testimony, he suggested that 

the BSE-positive cattle had entered the food supply. Due to the 

large number of overlapping firewalls, no cattle testing positive for 

BSE have entered the food supply in the United States. I think this 

small example justifies Mr. Stenholm’s testimony regarding the 

scare tactics used by animal rights activists to invent facts to support their extreme agenda, and we will submit information from 

the USDA of every cow that has been discovered in the United 

States with BSE, and there are only a few of them, to show that 

in each instance, the cow did not enter the food supply. And of 

course, a further safety measure is that the specified risk material 

in these animals is removed prior to the processing anyway so that 

portion that would contain any such ingredient would not get in 

anyway. But notwithstanding that fact, there is no cow that has 

entered our food supply, and I just want to make sure that the 

record reflects that so that the American consumer knows that our 

beef supply is indeed safe. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Goodlatte, would you yield on that point? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I appreciate you making those comments. A concern of mine for some time of course has been the same thing that 

we have shared, you and I have talked about and others on the 

committee about BSE, et cetera, and all animals aren’t the same, 

and concern has risen caused by some that the same thing applies 

to pork. That is just not so. Even efforts have been made to inject 

in tests, I am told, with BSE and it didn’t take. And I want to ask 

for you to yield to make this comment. As a young person, I used 

to feed and haul a lot of hogs to market and I had somebody ask 

me one time well, what goes on when a pig or a hog just lays down, 

and some would call that a downed animal, and I said well, first 

off, you understand it has been proven they are very smart animals. They have an intellect that is unusual when it comes to animals. And to get my point across, I finally said I will tell you what, 

36

as a person that dealt with that, they protest, they lay down. And 

the person said, well, what do you do then, and I said well, we are 

trying to load them to go to market, I said, we put a person on each 

ear and the tail and give them encouragement and maybe they just 

stand up and go. Now, a little on the light side of it, I get down 

to the Kansas City market, I was just a young fellow at those 

times, didn’t have anybody to help me but sometimes they decided 

to protest versus get off the top deck getting off the truck, and 

guess who had to go back up in there and get them out after healing them for 2 or 3 hours? I had a lot of involvement in that, but 

it is true, the hog, the swine, there has never, ever been a case of 

anything that would be remotely connected to BSE according to the 

many scientists and people that I have talked to and the people in 

the business. They are smart animals and they will do things like 

that to make you think they might be sick and they are not sick 

at all, and there is no evidence of it, and I may be overstretching 

the comment by saying they protest but that is exactly the way I 

see it to understand what they will do, having dealt with them over 

the times of my life. 

So thank you for yielding. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got to leave 

and I just want to point out, Mr. Pacelle and I disagree on the 

whole downed animal issue and I understand his position. I think 

it is incorrect because I think you correctly note that there are a 

multitude of reasons why an animal might be downed, and there 

are provisions in the law to assure that an animal that is downed 

and may be diseased does not get into the food supply. An animal 

that might have a broken leg or something like that under the old 

provisions would still be suitable for slaughter. The disagreement 

we had was over whether it should be all-encompassing like that 

and that an animal that had those kind of problems would still get 

into the food supply and an animal that is diseased shouldn’t get 

into the food supply under any circumstances whether it is downed 

or not. But the important thing here is to make very clear that in 

no instance of the very small number, I am not sure of the exact 

number, the 3, 4, 5 cows with BSE that have been found in the 

United States, none have entered the human food supply, and I 

just think it is important to set the record straight on that issue 

so that any coverage of this hearing makes it clear that the food 

supply, that the confidence of the American consumer in the safety 

of their beef is not any way impaired by that. 

I thank you very much for allowing me to make that one point. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you, and I would say this in credit to 

Mr. Pacelle or anybody else in the room: If you have a concern 

about BSE or downed animals, we all do. Nobody objects to that. 

We all do, and I think that is across the country, so I think that 

is something we absolutely agree on but we just have to use the 

science and be factual about it. 

This pretty much wraps up this panel. Is there anybody that 

wants to have the last—Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important that 

we end this panel and this important section of this hearing on the 

right tone. So sometimes I listen to testimony, a question will pop 

up in my mind, and I think I have to have an answer to that. The 

37

question that popped up in my mind was, can a vegan or a vegetarian, can they eat a carnivore, and as I rolled that question 

around in my mind, the very agile staff that we have comes up 

with an answer for me that I would like to share with this committee, and the answer to that is yes, that there are five plants, 

at least that we know of, that are carnivores themselves and we 

are all familiar with the Venus Flytrap but if you go across the 

range from the consumption of a small insect whereas the largest 

one is a Raja pitcher plant, they can actually digest mice. So I 

would think there would be a way to get some retribution by making a salad out of these five carnivorous plants. 

But I also wanted to make a confession just to end up my time 

here and that is that I am also a vegetarian, that I eat recycled, 

concentrated, enhanced vegetables in the form of meat. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I would like to close this panel at this time and 

thank every one of you for your patience and your contribution and 

the manner in which you presented things you feel strongly about. 

Thank you very much. We would excuse you at this time and ask 

the third and final panel to join us at the table. As you are getting 

situated, let me say to the third panel, thank you for your tolerance 

and your patience. You have waited a long time, and we don’t want 

you to think you are any less important for being here because 

sometimes they even say the best is last. I don’t know if that would 

be applicable here but nevertheless, we are pleased to have you 

here. 

By introduction, I would introduce Mr. Gene Baur, President of 

Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen, New York; Mr. Paxton Ramsey, 

Member, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Devers, Texas; 

Ms. Barbara Determan, National Pork Producers Counsel, Early, 

Iowa, I know where that is; Ms. Leslie Vagneur Lange, National 

Director, American Quarter Horse Association from Greeley, Colorado; and Ms. Karen Jordan, DVM, Owner of Large Animal Veterinary Services on behalf of the National Milk Producers Federation, 

Siler City, North Carolina. Welcome to the panel. 

Mr. Baur, would you please share with us. 

STATEMENT OF GENE BAUR, PRESIDENT, FARM SANCTUARY, 

WATKINS GLEN, NEW YORK 

Mr. BAUR. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank 

you very much for holding this hearing to address farm animal welfare. It is an area of growing concern across our country and that 

is why we are seeing companies like Whole Foods develop more humane standards and where companies like Smithfield are starting 

to move away from certain practices that have been common. My 

name is Gene Baur. I am the Oresident and Cofounder of Farm 

Sanctuary. We operate two sanctuaries for farm animals, one in 

New York, one in California. I also have a master’s degree on agricultural economics from Cornell University. So I have spent a fair 

bit of time taking care of animals. I have firsthand experience taking care of animals. Our shelters actually began when we would 

find living animals literally thrown in trashcans or living animals 

left on piles of dead animals behind stockyards. 

38

What has happened as we have pushed to produce more food 

more cheaply is that animals have become increasingly 

commodified. Animals are not being seen as living, feeling creatures and they are seen more as production units, and I am glad 

to hear that this assumption that if animals are productive, their 

welfare is good, is now being questioned. In fact, as Dr. Golab 

pointed out, there are competing interests on the farm. In some instances, animal welfare is actually in conflict with animal production. To produce egg-laying breeds of hens, hatcheries discard millions of unwanted male chicks every year. I have photos of baby 

chicks in dumpsters. I was at a hatchery once and watched living 

chicks put on an auger, sent into a manure spreader to be spread 

on the field as manure. As Dr. Temple Grandin has said, and she 

is one of the Nation’s and in fact the world’s leading livestock handling experts, bad has become normal oftentimes what happens on 

farms. I also want to just say that I don’t believe that farmers are 

bad people. I don’t believe that people who are throwing living animals in trashcans or confining them in these devices which I believe are inhumane, I don’t believe that those individuals are cruel 

or intentionally causing harm to animals but I believe people have 

become jaded, and the industry has looked to maximize production 

and it has come at the expensive of animal welfare. 

Science has shown us what we can do but it has not asked the 

question, what we should do. Ethics is the issue we are dealing 

with here and that is why these issues are so emotional. Animal 

advocates are very upset about what they see happening to animals 

and I also understand that animal producers sometimes feel threatened and feel that they are being called cruel. That is not an easy 

thing to hear. But I would like to point out again that these are 

not people intentionally causing harm or wishing to cause harm. 

Nobody wants to cause harm. We all like to see ourselves as humane citizens. But what is happening on farms is, in the view of 

myself and Farm Sanctuary’s members and most U.S. citizens, 

what is happening on farms is unacceptable. Most people do not 

feel that it is right to keep breeding pigs in 2-foot-wide crates for 

years. They feel that it is wrong to just throw living animals in 

trashcans or leave them on piles of dead animals. 

When we address how animals are raised, we need to look at the 

ethical issues. Science is important, that needs to be brought into 

the equation but ethics is also important, and that is one of the 

things that we haven’t really heard very much about here. What 

is humane? What is appropriate? What do we stand for as a people 

and as a society? Do we think it is okay for living chicks to be 

thrown on an auger and dumped into a manure spreader to be 

spread on the field as manure? Do we think that is appropriate? 

And I would also just say from the legal standpoint, farm animals 

are excluded from the Federal Animal Welfare Act and they are 

also excluded from many state anticruelty laws. So this idea of 

throwing these live animals away could in some cases be considered legal, and in fact, we had a court case in New Jersey where 

there were a couple of live hens that were thrown into a trashcan 

as manure. The egg industry’s lawyer actually argued in court that 

legally the birds could be treated like manure. The judge said isn’t 

39

there a difference between live birds and manure? And the attorney said no, Your Honor. 

So it has gotten to such a point that cruelty is defended and I 

think this hearing will hopefully shed some light on some of the 

real conditions and I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baur appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. We would now recognize Mr. Ramsey. 

STATEMENT OF PAXTON RAMSEY, MEMBER, NATIONAL 

CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION, DEVERS, TEXAS 

Mr. RAMSEY. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee. My name is Paxton Ramsey and I am 

the 4th of 5 generations on my family’s ranch in south Texas where 

we raise cattle and horses, and I am honored to be here this morning on behalf of the American rancher to confirm the importance 

of animal welfare in our industry. 

Each morning on ranches across the country, over a cup of coffee 

in the barn, cowboys are feeding, grooming, shoeing horses, putting 

orphaned calves on a nurse cow as they meet and prioritize their 

duties of the day. A plan is devised and each man departs for the 

day in a dirty pickup with a pair of fencing pliers, a sandwich, 

medicine and a fresh horse in his trailer. Our goal is to as thorough 

and efficient as we can in checking and handling our portion of the 

livestock with animal welfare and profitability in mind. This includes providing adequate water, minerals and vitamins based on 

age, condition, sex and time of year. A man once told me that 

ranching is an art and should be handled in a business-like way. 

Poorly tended animals will cause a ranch to go under, the same 

ranch the world is counting on for food. 

The longstanding commitment to the health and welfare of our 

animals is probably not something we talk about enough in public 

because it is not something that we have to make a conscious decision to pursue. Good care of our animals is second nature to us and 

it is not something we do because it is popular or newsworthy. We 

do it because these animals depend on us and we cannot fail them. 

If I may, allow me to take you a few miles off the highway where 

a young man has been working since before we all ate breakfast 

to locate a sick calf. He and his horse have just exhibited a harmony beyond words in roping this calf and giving the appropriate 

shots needed to prevent the signs of pneumonia from spreading. 

Picture the heat, the thorns, the dust, the potholes and many more 

pitfalls that this team has endured to get through rough country 

just to doctor one little old calf that neither you nor I will ever 

know about if he dies. Is it really worth all the work, risk and danger? What if the market value of that calf is at an all-time low? 

It is worth doing when no one will ever know if he turns his back 

and rides away? Yes, sir, it is. Do you know why? Because that 

young man promised his forefathers and his children that he 

would. Being a good steward is the job that he asked for and his 

integrity and the welfare of his animals are not to be compromised. 

Stewardship requires work. The cattle and horses of our family 

ranch count on us to adequately care for them as much or more 

40

than we count on them to take care of us. It is not only our moral 

obligation, it has also proven to be a more profitable way of business. We have learned through years of experience that if you take 

care of your pennies, your dollars will take care of themselves. A 

stressed animal that goes to market produces a substandard product. An animal that was raised without proper management practices will not produce high-quality meat. 

As a member of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and 

the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, I rely on 

them to help ensure that animal welfare is taken seriously 

throughout our industry. NCBA has worked with USDA, land 

grant universities, county agents, vets, animal scientists and cowboys to determine the effects of handling and care on livestock. 

That knowledge has helped the industry to develop new processes, 

procedures and equipment that improve animal welfare. For example, NCBA has long taken these principles and practices from the 

grass roots level and added the expertise of many associated entities to develop producer-led initiatives such as the Beef Quality Assurance Program and the cattle industry’s guidelines for the care 

and handling of cattle. 

Created in 1987, BQA provides guidelines for livestock care and 

handling and nutrition and veterinary treatment. Emphasis on 

education helps producers identify the day-to-day ranch management practices that influence the production of safe, wholesome 

beef. BQA incorporates current FDA, EPA and USDA regulations 

as well as HACCP principles. Today BQA influences more than 90 

percent of U.S. cattle. 

The BQA producer code of cattle care gives the following guidelines for cattle producers: provide adequate food, water and care to 

protect cattle health and well-being; provide disease prevention 

practices to protect the health of the herd including access to veterinary care; provide facilities that allow safe, humane and effective movement and/or restraint of livestock; use humane methods 

to euthanize sick or injured livestock and dispose of them properly; 

provide personnel with training to properly handle and care for cattle; make timely observations of livestock to ensure basic needs are 

being met; provide transportation that avoids undue stress caused 

by overcrowding, excess time in transit or improper handling during loading and unloading; keep updated on advancements and 

changes in the industry to make decisions based on sound production practices and consideration to animal well-being;, and finally, 

not to tolerate people or practices which willfully mistreat animals. 

In addition, the cattle industry’s guidelines for care and handling 

cattle, which were developed in 2003, are a comprehensive set of 

the best practices for every aspect of the cattle production. Some 

of the best practices include: low-stress cattle handling; effective 

shelter and housing; careful loading and transporting; and tips on 

reducing heat stress. 

As you can see, ladies and gentlemen, animal welfare is given 

great consideration every day in my business. Not only is proper 

care and handling something we practice, it is also regulated by 

state and federal law. As such, we look forward to working with 

Congress to ensure that state and federal agencies such as APHIS 

have all the resources they need for the inspection of regulated faVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:30 Jan 31, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\39809.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
41

cilities that handle livestock. In addition, we hope to work with you 

to continue efforts that ensure we have plenty of enthusiastic and 

talented vets entering large-animal practices. 

In closing, years of practical experience have shaped the practices we as cattlemen use to care for our livestock. It is not just 

something we talk about, it is something we do every day. I assure 

you, no one looks out for the welfare of our animals more than we 

do because it is an integral part of ensuring the industry remains 

as healthy and as vibrant as our cattle. On behalf of NCBA and 

the American rancher, I appreciate your time here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramsey appears at the conclusion of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Ramsey. 

The chair recognizes Ms. Determan. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA DETERMAN, NATIONAL PORK 

PRODUCERS COUNCIL, EARLY, IOWA 

Ms. DETERMAN. Good morning, Chairman Boswell and Ranking 

Member Hayes and other members of the subcommittee. I am Barb 

Determan. I am a 4th-generation pork producer from Early, Iowa, 

and I am a Past President of the National Pork Producers Council. 

First, I want to make a very clear, definitive statement to this 

committee and to Congress. American’s pork producers recognize 

our moral obligation to provide for the well-being of our animals 

and we raise our pigs in a humane, compassionate and socially responsible manner. Any production practice that falls short of this 

high performance standard is totally unacceptable and will not be 

tolerated by our industry. In addition to our moral obligation, pork 

producers’ livelihoods depend on the well-being and performance of 

their pigs. Through my own farm experiences and the countless 

number of people that I have met through my work and travels as 

an NPPC officer, I have learned that one thing is very constant 

among pork producers. We are in this business because we love 

working with pigs. None of us would do anything that would be 

knowingly harmful to the pigs’ well-being but remember, these are 

food animals, not household pets. 

Today I will tell you how American’s pork producers are addressing the well-being of our pigs through compassionate swine care, 

humane sow housing, responsible use of antibiotics and safe transportation. In 1989, pork producers established the Pork Quality Assurance, PQA, food safety program. Major meatpackers require our 

producers to have PQA certification. While producers have long 

used humane well-being practices, the industry further developed 

animal care guidelines in the early 1990s and we made them into 

standards as new knowledge about animal care became available. 

More recently, the industry developed and implemented the Trucker Quality Assurance Program for those who handle and transport 

market hogs. The majority of packing plants also require truckers 

to be TQA certified. All three of these efforts were among the first 

of their kind in the livestock industry and were developed in cooperation with animal well-being experts from land grant universities, practicing veterinarians and other scientists. 

In 2002, producers endorsed an updated U.S. producer code of 

practice that calls for us to: provide facilities to protect and shelter 

42

our pigs; provide personnel with training for proper care of our pigs 

with zero tolerance for mistreatment of our pigs in their care; provide access to good quality water, nutritionally balanced diets; provide prompt veterinary medical care when required; and maintain 

adequate biosecurity to protect the health of our herd. 

In 2003, the industry updated its Swine Care Handbook which 

is the foundation for the Swine Welfare Assurance Program, called 

SWAP. It is an educational and assessment program that looks at 

10 specific areas of animal care. Now the principles of SWAP are 

in the industry’s ongoing and groundbreaking Pork Quality Assurance Plus Program which does include certification, on-farm assessments and third-party audits. There was no pressure to implement 

these programs other than our belief to do the right thing. All our 

animals, even those raised for food, deserve to be provided with 

care and decency, and we do that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

365 days a year. 

With regard to sow housing, the pork industry agrees with the 

position of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Swine Veterinarians and other organizations, 

which recognize gestation stalls and group housing systems as appropriate for providing for the well-being of sows during pregnancy. 

Science and practice suggest that both individual and group housing have advantages and disadvantages. That is why we strongly 

believe the skill of the individual taking care of the pigs is the ultimate determining fact in the well-being of sows and market pigs. 

Healthy, well-cared-for animals are raised in almost any system as 

long as the care of the animal is the top priority. Science and farmer experience also tell us that mandating any one type of sow housing or simply changing for the sake of change is not necessarily in 

the best interest of the pig. 

We do not believe Congress has the understanding or the expertise to decide on farm practices for our production. We also believe 

that includes the use of antibiotics to treat injured or sick pigs and 

that prevent wound infections, pain and suffering. Pork producers 

use antibiotics in consultation with their veterinarian in a responsible manner. In fact, the industry created the Take Care, Use 

Antibiotics Responsibly program to enhance producers’ awareness 

of antibiotic use. Banning antibiotics because of some misconception or outdated information related to the antibiotic resistance in 

humans will only jeopardize the well-being of our animals. It is 

clear that antibiotic resistance in humans would not end if antibiotic use on farms were eliminated. One peer-reviewed study estimates that 96 percent of antibiotic resistance in humans is due to 

the human use of antibiotic and not from the consumption of meet 

products. In addition, the FDA has a rigorous science-based approval process for animal antibiotics that addresses human health 

concerns and sets withdrawal times for each antibiotic use. 

I am proud to be part of an industry that on our own has developed and implemented world-class programs that help pork producers raise and care for their animals in a humane, compassionate and socially responsible manner. We oppose legislation that 

dictates our production practices or that bans products and practices that help us care for our pigs and we oppose including an animal welfare title in the farm bill. 

43

Again, thank you for letting me testify on behalf of the Nation’s 

pork producers and I will be happy to answer any questions at the 

appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Determan appears at the conclusion of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Lange. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE VAGNEUR LANGE, NATIONAL 

DIRECTOR, AMERICAN QUARTER HORSE ASSOCIATION 

Ms. LANGE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Leslie Lange. I am the National Director for the American Quarter Horse Association from my home 

State of Colorado. It is AQHA’s hope that by providing this testimony, commonsense legislation can be addressed that will not adversely affect horse owners, horses or the industry at large. 

There are many examples of people who believe they are working 

for positive changes yet they are in fact irreparably damaging the 

agricultural industry. Threats received by Colorado’s own beloved, 

century-old National Western Stock Show and Rodeo and protests 

at rodeos across the country by militant animal rights groups are 

just a few examples. 

Today I want to focus on what has occurred recently as a result 

of the closure of some horse processing facilities in the United 

States. The American Quarter Horse Association represents a 

broad base of members who are involved in many different areas 

of the industry. The primary concern of these members, my fellow 

directors and staff is ensuring that the welfare of the horse is paramount to all other considerations. I would like to have added to the 

record a copy of AQHA’s rulebook that addresses humane treatment. I want the record to reflect that AQHA does not favor 

slaughter as a way of dealing with America’s unwanted horses. 

However, the association’s board does recognize that the processing 

of unwanted horses is currently a necessary aspect of the equine 

industry. Some have publicly mischaracterized AQHA as not being 

for the horse and that could not be further from the truth. If it 

weren’t for the horse, AQHA would not exist. 

Additionally, it has been improperly stated that the majority of 

horses that go to slaughter are American Quarter Horses. To be accurate, the processing facilities do not know the breeds of these 

horses. 

As a breed registry, the association’s primary role is to record the 

pedigrees of American quarter horses. It is not AQHA’s role to restrict a breeder’s right to breed their horses. In fact, courts have 

ruled that in certain cases, it is a restraint of trade for the association to do so. 

The three areas I would like to comment on are long-term care 

for horses, funding for enforcement and an equine welfare system 

and how the industry is handling the unwanted-horse issue without the government reacting to animal rights activists or celebrities 

who are out of touch. 

Earlier this year when the horse processing facilities were closed, 

AQHA warned that if this were to occur without addressing longterm-care solutions, some horses would needlessly suffer. Their 

44

owners would not have a way to sell a horse they no longer wanted 

nor could afford to keep. An unwanted horse is one that has become a burden rather than a joy to its owner. Examples of these 

problems, AQHA took a call from an irate salebarn owner who 

found himself in possession of a handful of horses that the owner 

had simply abandoned because he couldn’t even get the consignment fee for them in the auction. The association received a call 

from a feed store in Mississippi that was approached to help feed 

70 horses that had been abandoned. An AQHA member from Montana mailed pictures of a 3-year-old gelding that died of starvation 

because its owner simply walked away. And in my home State of 

Colorado, 23 horses were locked in a barn and abandoned. The 

owner told authorities he could no longer afford to take care of 

these horses because of rising prices and plummeting value. 

Certainly, all owners should care for their animals properly. Unfortunately, not all do because they can no longer afford to. While 

many business owners and animal lovers have a soft spot for these 

abandoned horses now, at some point the gravy train is going to 

run dry and horses are already becoming victims. 

Activists and misguided legislation circulating around Washington relating to horse slaughter are having a powerful impact on 

the very animal meant to be protected. Whether or not we want to 

admit it, economics comes into play. The slaughter market determines the base or floor price for horses. When that bottom falls out 

or is removed, as it has been, it simply stands to reason that it will 

adversely affect the horse industry and the horses themselves. 

I make my living off the horse industry, and even at the upper 

end where I train and compete, owners are beginning to feel the 

effects of the bottoming of the horse industry. When the floor is removed, the entire industry begins to fall, and as we are seeing, values are beginning to decline. 

I would like to add to the record the American Horse Council’s 

Economic Impact of the Horse Industry. 

The other economic issue deals with how are we going to care for 

90,000 horses each year entering the equine welfare system. By 

most assessments, it would take an additional 2,700 bona fide rescue facilities. By providing only the most basic care of hay and 

water, it will cost $171 million to care for 90,000 unwanted horses 

displaced as a result of banning horse slaughter in the United 

States. 

Staff at AQHA called the hometowns of each of the members of 

this subcommittee. Of the 18 municipalities contacted, only one had 

the facilities to take in displaced horses. We have a long way to go. 

As a result of the closing of the Nation’s processing facilities, 

today there are more horses on the market causing the value to 

plunge. Low prices have consequences, and while slaughter is not 

pretty, it does provide a humane, economical way for an owner to 

relinquish an unwanted horse. 

The option of sending a horse for processing must remain available to those who need it so long as measures ensuring humane 

transportation and treatment of horses are in place. Today those 

rules exist, and in the United States we protect the dignity of even 

the most unwanted or unusable horse. Once an animal is taken 

outside the borders, we lose those standards of care. 

45

The good news is, the horse industry is addressing the issue 

without government intervention through the Unwanted Horse Coalition. The Unwanted Horse Coalition, which was established in 

2005, is working to eliminate America’s unwanted horses. Their 

goal is not to pay for the care of unwanted horses but to reduce 

their number and improve their welfare. Through education and 

hard work, we are addressing this problem without creating inadvertent problems like this ban has. 

Ladies and gentlemen of this subcommittee, I love horses and I 

love how good the agriculture industry has been to me. If you are 

serious about helping horses and the good people who make their 

livelihood off the livestock industry, I hope you will do what is 

right to end this problem. It is not about passing laws that have 

unintended consequences; it is about being realistic, doing what is 

right for horses and feasible for taxpayers. 

Thank you for your time today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lange appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Jordan. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN JORDAN, DVM, OWNER, LARGE ANIMAL VETERINARY SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL 

MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, SILER CITY, NORTH CAROLINA 

Ms. JORDAN. Thank you for inviting the National Milk Producers 

Federation to testify before you today. My name is Karen Jordan 

and I am a practicing large-animal veterinarian from Siler City, 

North Carolina. My husband and I also own Brush Creek Swiss 

Farms, where we milk 75 registered Brown Swiss and raise about 

70 replacement heifers. Currently I serve as Vice-Chair of the Animal Health Committee of National Milk and Chair of the Cattle 

Health Committee of the National Institution for Animal Agriculture. 

My testimony today focuses on the animal care that our U.S. 

dairy farmers provide every day for their animals and the incorporation of new technology as it becomes available to improve the 

welfare of our animals. Dairy farmers know that improving animal 

welfare pays back on a daily basis. Every day, regardless of the 

size of the operation, dairy farmers invest time and money in providing the best health care, housing and nutrition that is available. 

While specific animal care practices vary depending on the geographic region and climate, proper animal care is practiced 

throughout the industry. 

Simply put, what is good for our cows is good for our businesses. 

In 2002, National Milk Producers and the Milk and Dairy Beef 

Quality Assurance Center came together to develop the Caring for 

Dairy Animals Technical Reference Guide. This is a comprehensive 

set of dairy animal well-being guidelines that covers all aspects of 

dairy animal care. The Milk and Dairy Beef Quality Assurance 

Center also offers a third-party auditing component of the program 

and many dairy farmers choose to go through own farm audit to 

verify their best management practices. 

46

These guidelines have been recognized by the Food Marketing Institute and the National Council of Chain Restaurants. The guidelines were developed using the most current animal well-being research and these guidelines have been extensively reviewed by 

dairy animal welfare experts and are endorsed by the American Association of Bovine Practitioners. At the inception of the guidelines, 

a strong promotional effort led by National Milk was initiated and 

these guidelines were widely distributed to dairy farmers, veterinarians, dairy nutritionists, milk cooperative field staff and others 

who interact with dairy farmers on a daily basis. 

The dairy industry has not only addressed animal care standards 

for the milking cow but also for dairy calves, replacement heifers 

and for veal calves. Farmers that raise replacement heifers utilize 

the Raising Quality Replacement Heifers guidelines. The American 

Veal Association has developed the Veal Quality Assurance Program, which provides stringent guidelines for animal well-being 

and care and requires multiple yearly onsite visits from an accredited and licensed veterinarian to document compliance. 

Several years ago, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture 

was mandated to develop and adopt regulations governing the minimum standards for the humane treatment of domestic livestock. 

The same Caring for Dairy Animals Technical Reference Guide was 

a set of dairy animal welfare guidelines that the State of New Jersey used to develop the dairy component of their standards. 

There are also other dairy animal welfare verification programs 

that states or dairy organizations have developed. For example, the 

States of California and New York have quality assurance programs that have a dairy animal welfare component to them. 

In addition to animal care guidelines, the dairy industry also 

supports new research in the animal well-being area. As new appropriate technologies and/or animal care practices arise, they are 

recommended to producers, and in the past decade animal welfare 

research has lead to many improvements in cow comfort. Because 

of this research, farmers have applied the improvements gained 

from the research into their management practices. Today many 

farmers provide their cows with fans and sprinkler systems to keep 

them cool and comfortable. Farmers also install rubber mats for 

their cows to stand on as well as clean, comfortable bedding such 

as sand and rubber-filled mattresses for their cows to lie on. Routine herd health programs are also a part of all dairy farmers’ daily 

management. 

Through a combination of modern production technologies and 

experienced gained across generations of dairying, today’s milk producers know how to maximize cow comfort and well-being in order 

to achieve the record levels of milk production that you are seeing 

today. National Milk Producers continues to work with other dairy 

organizations to promote the animal care guidelines to our dairy 

producers. 

As you can see, U.S. dairy farmers have been very involved in 

the welfare of their animals and dairy farmers want to provide the 

utmost care for their animals. Because of all the industry efforts, 

we respectfully request that you oppose any proposed farm animal 

welfare legislation as part of the 2007 Farm Bill. Dairy farmers’ 

47

livelihood is already based on well-cared-for and healthy animals to 

produce wholesome, nutritious dairy products. 

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Milk Producers Federation, and I have a copy 

of the guidelines that I have referred to during this testimony that 

I would like for this to be made part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jordan appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing:] 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you, Ms. Jordan, for an excellent testimony. 

We will move to our questions now. I guess it is a learning process for me, but Mr. Baur, if I could start off with, is Farm Sanctuary an animal welfare or animal rights organization? 

Mr. BAUR. We are both. We encourage people to consider eating 

in a compassionate way, which would include a vegan lifestyle, but 

we also work to stop cruelty so we recognize that each person has 

to make their own food choices though. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay. I am trying to understand your goals. Is it 

to end animal agriculture? 

Mr. BAUR. No, our goals are to prevent suffering, to prevent cruelty. We are not anti-farmer; we are anti-cruelty. 

Mr. BOSWELL. So you just said you are a vegetarian or a——

Mr. BAUR. I am a vegan, yes, but we recognize that each person 

has to make their own choice in terms of what they eat. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Out of curiosity, and I am not picking on you, but 

would you like to see an end to raising and the slaughter of animals for food? 

Mr. BAUR. Personally, I think it is a violent—killing animals is 

a bloody, violent thing and I frankly feel kind of bad for those who 

have to do it, so in my ideal world and what I dream about, yes, 

that is what I would like to see. I also recognize that I am individual with my own dreams and each of us have our own dreams 

but we as a society need to decide what is appropriate, and I think 

that is where we are currently not acting appropriately. We are 

doing some very bad things to animals. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I am curious about, if I could, where does Farm 

Sanctuary gets its funding. Do you get it from HSUS? Do you receive funding from them? 

Mr. BAUR. No, the vast majority of our support comes from our 

members. We have 150,000 supporters across the U.S. 

Mr. BOSWELL. But back to my question, do you get any funding 

from HSUS? 

Mr. BAUR. We were involved with a rescue of chickens from 

Katrina and we did get a donation from HSUS for that particular 

rescue but that was a one-time thing and——

Mr. BOSWELL. But how about other help? For example, PETA, do 

you get any——

Mr. BAUR. No, we have never gotten any funding from PETA. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you very much. 

I would like to address this question to some of the others. I am 

aware that a lot of quality assurance activity goes on within your 

industries, beef, pork, dairy, I think it does with horses as well so 

would you just, to enlighten us a little bit, give me just a little bit 

of what you are doing to try to put this forward. 

48

Mr. RAMSEY. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think it varies from region to region as each ranch requires certain activity to ensure welfare of animals. I know that NCBA has worked hard to establish 

its Beef Quality Assurance Program and it is a recommended procedure to all of their members. However, our ranch personally, for 

example, we actually have to go above and beyond that to some degree. 

Mr. BOSWELL. But you have an education program, if I remember. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I think it is very good. I am going to give you a 

chance to tell the folks about that. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. I think it promotes an activity among all 

ranches to be in touch with their veterinarians, to be in touch with 

what is a good vaccine program to prevent any unnecessary sickness or death. But it is very——

Mr. BOSWELL. Barbara? 

Ms. DETERMAN. The Pork Quality Assurance Program, like we 

said, has been around since 1989 and anybody who handles hogs, 

and especially on our farm, goes through PQA training, even down 

to my teenage daughter has gone through Pork Quality Assurance 

training. And what that is, is an education process with a certified 

veterinarian who walks us through the education process of how to 

handle the pigs. The PQA Plus Program that is going to be introduced this year to producers now includes the animal welfare component to it too which will have an assessment as well as thirdparty audit within that. Most of the major packers in the pork industry require producers to be PQA certified. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Ms. Jordan or Ms. Lange, either one, your quality 

programs? 

Ms. JORDAN. For the dairy industry, our Caring for Dairy Animals Technical Reference Guide has been well circulated through 

our different dairy magazines. It has been made available to the 

field staff for different member cooperatives for distribution to our 

dairy farmers. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you. 

Ms. LANGE. In the equine industry, it is obvious that we don’t 

consume a large amount of horsemeat in the United States but the 

American Quarter Horse Association does have over $6 million in 

contributions in equine research for the health and well-being of 

the equine animal, and as I spoke in my testimony, the Unwanted 

Horse Coalition is working to provide a place other than slaughter 

for horses that are unwanted or unusable. We have brochures that 

we have put out addressing those unwanted-horse issues and what 

the options are besides slaughter to try to address the unwantedhorse issue. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you very well. 

Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Jordan, would you outline briefly the guidelines employed by 

veal raisers to improve and to ensure animal care? 

Ms. JORDAN. I am sorry. I would have to get back to you on that. 

I don’t have access to that document. 

49

Mr. HAYES. How about your personal experience? That is all I 

am asking about. 

Ms. JORDAN. Well, personal experience, our book has—we usually 

keep them on the farm for 7 to 10 days and then they are usually 

sold locally and they are handled just like as if they were a heifer 

calf, and we are trying to get them started out just as well as any 

of our heifer calves are started out. 

Mr. HAYES. Is Johnson’s still in Siler City? 

Mr. JORDAN. Johnson’s Restaurant? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes. 

Ms. JORDAN. Yes, sir, best hamburgers. 

Mr. HAYES. We could convert some vegans there, I believe. 

Ms. Determan, thank you for coming by yesterday. Talk briefly 

about the downers and the ban that is proposed under H.R. 661. 

What impact would that have and is that practical and realistic? 

Ms. DETERMAN. Well, as Chairman Boswell explained, pigs sometimes just protest, and so the pigs when we are unloading them at 

the slaughter plant, sometimes we have—they just get stubborn 

and especially if it is warm, they will just lay down, and that could 

possibly eliminate a lot of pigs from our supply because this is just 

a trait of theirs. By eliminating pigs who are perfectly healthy and 

pose no threat to the food supply would be a huge impact on our 

industry. But more importantly, they are safe and they are good, 

quality product to go to consumers who need to feed their families. 

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Baur, do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned? 

Mr. BAUR. I haven’t honestly given it a lot of thought. I mean, 

we are here to talk about farm animals. Well, Roe v. Wade, I mean, 

that is—I honestly don’t have a position on it. 

Mr. HAYES. Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you. A couple things. I 

would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Stenholm’s May 23 letter 

to Mr. Pacelle be entered into the record today, and I would also 

from personal experience like to add to the testimony that as a 

great fan, my wife and I of PBR, the bulls are treated much better 

than the cowboys, exemplary across the board. Also, the circus, as 

a grandfather, I have never seen better care for animals and in the 

quarter horse industry, the dairy farmers, poultry—Mama, don’t let 

your baby grow up to be a cowboy. You did a great job, Mr. 

Ramsey. They are doing a good job. 

So thank you for the hearing, and I will yield my time in case 

some other questions need to be asked. You need to think about 

that Roe v. Wade, Mr. Baur. It is interesting, given your position. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will move quickly. 

Ms. Determan, when I was a young boy, we farrowed pigs with 

wooden panels in the barn, pitched straw over them and bedded 

the sows in that. They had the pigs, got up, laid back down, laid 

on them, sometimes they ate them. How many pigs did we wean 

per litter then and compared to 20 years ago when we came with 

farrowing crates compared to today with gestation crates? What 

has happened to the survivability of those pigs? 

Ms. DETERMAN. Survivability of the pigs has greatly increased, 

first of all. Second of all, I had the same experience. I grew up on 

50

a pig farm too so I had the same experience of having those pigs 

get laid on and other things happened. But mainly the survivability has increased from anywhere from 2 to 3 pigs per litter, and 

that is per litter, not yearlong but per litter. So it has been a 

very— I have had experience both ways and I will tell you that the 

individual care that I can give to each animal in a stall is extremely important for me as a producer to be able to take care of 

each animal individually, not only care-wise but also make sure 

they get the right feed and the whole works. 

Mr. KING. But today you see a wean average approaching 10 pigs 

per litter? 

Ms. DETERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And when I was a little boy, what was that number, 

what would you—just a guess. 

Ms. DETERMAN. Less than seven. Now is 10. 

Mr. KING. That is about how many pigs’ lives one would sacrifice 

if they went back to a more natural way of doing this. 

I yield back the balance of my time. I thank the chairman and 

thank the witnesses. 

Mr. BOSWELL. I understand Mr. Walberg has no questions. 

Mr. Hayes, we are going to ask you if you have any closing remarks before we wrap up here. Seeing none at this moment, I 

would like to say this for my part: excellent panel. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Baur, Mr. Ramsey, Ms. Determan, Ms. Lange, Ms. Jordan, I appreciate you taking the time and coming and sharing with 

us and helping us discuss this issue of animal welfare. I think overall as we think of what has happened here these last 3 hours or 

so, that it has been an open opportunity to put things under glass, 

if you will, out in daylight and talk about it. One thing I have 

learned and appreciate very much is that folks are concerned about 

animal welfare, they are serious about it, but I also learned very 

much that a lot is being done in the industry to address this, and 

I want you to know that we appreciate that. 

As a participant myself, I have grown up trying to do that so I 

think that you are doing the right thing and we want you to know 

we appreciate it. I am concerned particularly about the downed 

animal situation that some misinformation is out there and we 

have to make sure that is corrected. I rely on a lot of you in the 

industry and those who practice medicine in the industry to help 

us out on that because I think it would be devastating to the pork 

industry, for example, if they would be falsely accused of sick animals when they are not sick animals. I have got too much grease 

on me from the past. I know better. So I would trust that we would 

work together on that particular point because it seems to keep 

coming back from time to time and I think it is an education process, so I would hope that today has facilitated that. That is what 

we have tried to do. 

I am going to bring this to a close and say this for the record. 

Under the rules of the committee, the record for today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 days to receive additional material and 

supplemental responses from witnesses to any question posed by a 

member of the panel. This hearing of the Subcommittee of Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee is now adjourned. Thank 

you very much. 

51

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

52


39809.001
53


39809.002
54


39809.004
55


39809.005
56


39809.006
57


39809.007
58


39809.008
59


39809.009
60


39809.291
61


39809.292
62


39809.293
63


39809.294
64


39809.295
65


39809.296
66


39809.297
67


39809.298
68


39809.299
69


39809.300
70


39809.301
71


39809.302
72


39809.303
73


39809.304
74


39809.305
75


39809.306
76


39809.307
77


39809.308
78


39809.309
79


39809.310
80


39809.311
81


39809.312
82


39809.313
83


39809.314
84


39809.315
85


39809.316
86


39809.317
87


39809.318
88


39809.319
89


39809.320
90


39809.321
91


39809.322
92


39809.323
93


39809.324
94


39809.325
95


39809.326
96


39809.327
97


39809.328
98


39809.329
99


39809.330
100


39809.331
101


39809.332
102


39809.333
103


39809.334
104


39809.335
105


39809.336
106


39809.337
107


39809.338
108


39809.339
109


39809.340
110


39809.341
111


39809.342
112


39809.343
113


39809.344
114


39809.345
115


39809.346
116


39809.347
117


39809.348
118


39809.349
119


39809.350
120


39809.351
121


39809.352
122


39809.353
123


39809.354
124


39809.355
125


39809.356
126


39809.357
127


39809.358
128


39809.359
129


39809.360
130


39809.361
131


39809.362
132


39809.363
133


39809.364
134


39809.365
135


39809.366
136


39809.367
137


39809.368
138


39809.369
139


39809.370
140


39809.371
141


39809.372
142


39809.373
143


39809.374
144


39809.375
145


39809.376
146


39809.377
147


39809.378
148


39809.379
149


39809.380
150


39809.381
151


39809.382
152


39809.383
153


39809.385
154


39809.386
155


39809.387
156


39809.388
157


39809.389
158


39809.390
159


39809.391
160


39809.392
161


39809.010
162


39809.011
163


39809.012
164


39809.013
165


39809.014
166


39809.015
167


39809.016
168


39809.017
169


39809.018
170


39809.019
171


39809.020
172


39809.021
173


39809.022
174


39809.023
175


39809.024
176


39809.025
177


39809.026
178


39809.027
179


39809.028
180


39809.029
181


39809.030
182


39809.031
183


39809.032
184


39809.033
185


39809.034
186


39809.035
187


39809.036
188


39809.037
189


39809.038
190


39809.039
191


39809.040
192


39809.041
193


39809.042
194


39809.043
195


39809.044
196


39809.045
197


39809.046
198


39809.047
199


39809.048
200


39809.049
201


39809.050
202


39809.051
203


39809.052
204


39809.053
205


39809.054
206


39809.055
207


39809.056
208


39809.057
209


39809.058
210


39809.059
211


39809.060
212


39809.061
213


39809.062
214


39809.063
215


39809.064
216


39809.065
217


39809.066
218


39809.067
219


39809.068
220


39809.069
221


39809.070
222


39809.071
223


39809.072
224


39809.073
225


39809.074
226


39809.075
227


39809.076
228


39809.077
229


39809.078
230


39809.079
231


39809.080
232


39809.081
233


39809.082
234


39809.083
235


39809.084
236


39809.085
237


39809.086
238


39809.087
239


39809.088
240


39809.089
241


39809.090
242


39809.091
243


39809.092
244


39809.093
245


39809.094
246


39809.095
247


39809.096
248


39809.097
249


39809.098
250


39809.099
251


39809.100
252


39809.101
253


39809.102
254


39809.103
255


39809.104
256


39809.105
257


39809.106
258


39809.107
259


39809.108
260


39809.109
261


39809.110
262


39809.111
263


39809.112
264


39809.113
265


39809.114
266


39809.115
267


39809.116
268


39809.117
269


39809.118
270


39809.119
271


39809.120
272


39809.121
273


39809.122
274


39809.123
275


39809.124
276


39809.125
277


39809.126
278


39809.127
279


39809.128
280


39809.129
281


39809.130
282


39809.131
283


39809.132
284


39809.133
285


39809.134
286


39809.135
287


39809.136
288


39809.137
289


39809.138
290


39809.139
291


39809.140
292


39809.141
293


39809.142
294


39809.143
295


39809.144
296


39809.145
297


39809.146
298


39809.147
299


39809.148
300


39809.149
301


39809.150
302


39809.151
303


39809.152
304


39809.153
305


39809.154
306


39809.155
307


39809.156
308


39809.157
309


39809.158
310


39809.159
311


39809.160
312


39809.161
313


39809.162
314


39809.163
315


39809.164
316


39809.165
317


39809.166
318


39809.167
319


39809.168
320


39809.169
321


39809.170
322


39809.171
323


39809.172
324


39809.173
325


39809.174
326


39809.175
327


39809.176
328


39809.177
329


39809.178
330


39809.179
331


39809.180
332


39809.181
333


39809.182
334


39809.183
335


39809.184
336


39809.185
337


39809.186
338


39809.187
339


39809.188
340


39809.189
341


39809.200
342


39809.201
343


39809.202
344


39809.203
345


39809.204
346


39809.205
347


39809.206
348


39809.207
349


39809.208
350


39809.209
351


39809.210
352


39809.211
353


39809.212
354


39809.213
355


39809.214
356


39809.215
357


39809.216
358


39809.217
359


39809.218
360


39809.219
361


39809.220
362


39809.221
363


39809.222
364


39809.223
365


39809.224
366


39809.225
367


39809.226
368


39809.227
369


39809.228
370


39809.229
371


39809.230
372


39809.231
373


39809.232
374


39809.233
375


39809.234
376


39809.235
377


39809.236
378


39809.237
379


39809.238
380


39809.239
381


39809.240
382


39809.241
383


39809.242
384


39809.243
385


39809.244
386


39809.245
387


39809.246
388


39809.247
389


39809.248
390


39809.249
391


39809.250
392


39809.251
393


39809.252
394


39809.253
395


39809.254
396


39809.255
397


39809.256
398


39809.257
399


39809.258
400


39809.259
401


39809.260
402


39809.261
403


39809.262
404


39809.263
405


39809.264
406


39809.265
407


39809.266
408


39809.267
409


39809.268
410


39809.269
411


39809.270
412


39809.271
413


39809.272
414


39809.273
415


39809.274
416


39809.275
417


39809.276
418


39809.277
419


39809.278
420


39809.279
421


39809.280
422


39809.281
423


39809.282
424


39809.283
425


39809.284
426


39809.285
427


39809.286
428


39809.287
429


39809.288
430


39809.289
431


39809.290
432


39809.393
433


39809.394
434


39809.395
435


39809.396
436


39809.397
437


39809.398
438


39809.399
439


39809.400
440


39809.401
441

Æ


39809.402