Most Americans are surprised to learn that each year nearly 100,000 horses—former pleasure horses, work horses, racers, and even wild horses—face a grim and painful end: the slaughterhouse. Perhaps even more perplexing is that when these horses are slaughtered, their flesh is exported overseas to Belgium, France, and Japan, where American horsemeat is considered a delicacy.
Horses are many things to Americans: icons of the West, faithful and trusted companions, but never food. In fact, horses have never been raised for food in America. For years, The HSUS and other animal protection groups have been fighting to end horse slaughter and to bring U.S. agricultural practices in line with our beliefs.
On October 27, a horse slaughter ban that's been steadily moving towards Congressional approval cleared yet another key hurdle on its way to final passage—approval by a U.S. Senate and House conference committee. Before the committee approved the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill, which contains the slaughter ban as an amendment, there had been talk of stripping the slaughter ban from the bill, despite the ban's overwhelming support in both House and Senate votes earlier this year.
"We applaud conferees for not caving in and for securing this resounding victory for democratic principles and for the welfare of horses," says Michael Markarian, executive vice president of The HSUS. "The Congress has ensured that tens of thousands of American horses will be saved from a grim and painful end next year, only to end up on foreign dinner plates."
A Nation in Agreement
On September 20, the U.S. Senate voted 69-28 to pass an amendment to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill that defunds U.S. Department of Agriculture inspections for one year at the three U.S. slaughter plants that process horses and at border inspections of slaughter-bound horses. The amendment was identical in language to a U.S. House amendment which passed in June by a vote of 269-158. Together, these amendments would effectively shut down the three slaughter plants and temporarily end horse slaughter for human consumption for a year.
These dual victories demonstrate that as a nation, the United States rejects horse slaughter, and the notion of the federal government spending citizens' tax dollars to facilitate it.
According to the usual rules of legislative process, the appropriations bill moved to a conference committee where members from both the Senate and House of Representatives examined the bill and worked out any differences between the Senate and House versions. Since the horse slaughter amendments were identical, it was virtually assured the slaughter ban would automatically remain in the final version of the appropriations bill.
Nearly Horse-Traded?
However, during the several days of conference committee proceedings, rumors and fears circulated that certain members on the conference committee were maneuvering to strip the horse slaughter ban. Even The Washington Times ran an editorial referencing anonymous legislators who were adamant about removing the ban. The Times speculated that they were probably feeling pressure from the livestock industry.
Conference committees are a peculiar part of an otherwise transparent process, in that they are traditionally very secretive. It can be very challenging to get a clear read of who on the committee is really on your side. It is also very peculiar that one well-placed member can literally circumvent the democratic process and strip a provision that is supported by a majority of his or her colleagues. As the Times opined, "…since most of this goes on behind closed doors, few expect anyone to notice."
Fortunately for the horses, The HSUS and other animal protection groups did take notice. They appealed to their members to flood Congress with calls and emails in support of keeping the slaughter ban intact. Our Congressional champions on the horse slaughter ban—Reps. John Sweeney (R-NY), John Spratt (D-SC), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and Senators John Ensign (R-NV), Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA)—held fast.
The message to the conferees was clear: don't you dare.
The Will of the People
Although what happened behind the closed doors of the conference committee may never come to light, we do know that, in the end, they listened. The horse slaughter ban remained in the final version of the Agriculture Appropriations bill. While the ban was retained, the committee did meddle with its enactment date, carving out a four month phase-in period, so that the ban won't be in place immediately. The House leadership also added language that may prevent future appropriations amendments banning horse slaughter, hoping to thwart horse advocates from using the budget process in coming years.
To protect the slaughter ban from back-room meddling, animal protection groups will redouble their efforts to enact the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which will codify the ban on horse slaughter as a matter of permanent law.
Even though the appropriations victory did not permanently ban horse slaughter, its significance cannot be overstated. It was the culmination of a tooth-and-nail fight to the finish. In a true demonstration of the democratic system at work, grassroots activism, savvy lobbying, and committed Congressional members and staff played a part at every step along the way to protecting America's horses and a true victory for animals.
Good News, Bad News
In addition to the horse slaughter ban, there was other good news for animals in the Agriculture Appropriations conference package, tempered by some setbacks.
On the positive side: despite intense budget pressures, the final bill included significant increases above last year’s funding levels for enforcement of key animal protection laws. The bill contains a $1.4 million boost for the Animal Welfare Act—enough to hire another eight inspectors and three investigators—and a $4 million boost for the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.
Also a win for animal advocates: the final package did not include harmful language sought by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) that would have exempted Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs, also known as factory farms) from public reporting requirements for toxic emissions under federal environmental laws.
On the down side: Two additional animal welfare amendments offered to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), and approved by voice vote in the Senate (but not contained in the House version), were stripped in committee.
One amendment would have ensured that no "downed livestock" would be allowed into the human food supply by prohibiting USDA inspectors from approving meat from such animals. The amendment would have covered pigs, sheep, and other animals besides cows (who are currently covered by a regulatory ban). No matter what the species, though, downed animals suffer terribly if forced to endure the long and crowded journey to the slaughterhouse. They are often dragged by chains or pushed by bulldozers, or simply left to die. A ban on downed animals would have given those who handle farm animals more incentive to humanely euthanize a sick or injured animal rather than risk transporting the animal to a slaughterhouse which may refuse to take the animal if he or she arrives unable to walk.
The second amendment that was stripped would have prohibited tax dollars from being used for research facilities that purchase animals from "Class B dealers" who traffic in family pets for research. Historically, Class B dealers have been notorious for various unsavory practices, such as acquiring dogs from free-to-good home ads under false pretenses, stealing pets, and housing animals under inhumane conditions.
