Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics

The Good and the Bad in the Farm Bill

The House Agriculture Committee, late last night, approved its version of the Farm Bill, and with it included an important provision to close a loophole in the federal animal fighting statute and help crack down on people who attend and bring children to dogfights and cockfights. The animal fighting amendment, offered by Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., passed the committee by a bipartisan vote of 28 to 17. It’s based on H.R. 366, sponsored by Reps. Tom Marino, R-Pa., McGovern, John Campbell, R-Calif., and Jim Moran, D-Va.

The opponents of the provision, led by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., argued that animal fighting laws should be handled by the states, and that the penalties were too severe, potentially breaking families apart when the parents go to prison just for bringing their child to a dogfight. Rep. McGovern and Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., who is one of only two veterinarians in Congress, forcefully made the argument that the federal government has an important role to play because a large share of these fights attract participants from multiple states who finance the operations and allow them to thrive, and that if parents are bringing their children to animal fights it may not be a suitable environment to raise a child.

The amendment passed, with 10 Republicans and 18 Democrats supporting this anti-crime and anti-cruelty legislation. We are grateful to all the members of the committee who voted in favor of the animal fighting amendment, and you can see their names below. This vote came just a day after the Senate Agriculture Committee marked up its version of the Farm Bill, which also includes the animal fighting spectator provision, thanks to the leadership of Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Ranking Member Thad Cochran, R-Miss, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.  It’s based on S. 666, sponsored by Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mark Kirk, R-Ill., Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and David Vitter, R-La. With the animal fighting provision in both the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill passed by both committees, there is a good chance it will be enacted into law, and we will be working hard to make sure that happens.

Ironically, while the opponents of the animal fighting provision argued that the federal government should leave these matters up to the states, they had just minutes earlier passed a separate amendment that would substitute the judgment of the federal government for the judgment of state legislators, voters, and regulators across the country. The committee approved, by voice vote, an amendment by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that seeks to nullify hundreds of state laws on agriculture products, including animal welfare, food safety, labor, and environmental standards. A number of lawmakers spoke passionately and fought hard against this federal power grab and trampling on the historic power of the states—including Reps. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., Jim Costa, D-Calif., John Garamendi, D-Calif., and Schrader—and cautioned the committee that this provision is so overbroad and far-reaching there’s no telling how many state and local laws could be impacted.

The states have a major role in agriculture policy, just as the feds do. They are partners, and Congress should not treat them as underlings. If there are rules or laws that regulate agriculture, those standards were duly considered by regulators, lawmakers or voters. What an insult to negate their work and to substitute the judgment of Washington for theirs, from thousands of miles away. It’s clear that some lawmakers will trot out arguments about states’ rights when it’s convenient, such as when they want to oppose a tough anti-dogfighting law, but will trample all over states’ rights when they don’t like what state legislators or voters are doing. We’ll be working to address this federal takeover as the Farm Bill progresses.

Voting YES to crack down on animal fighting spectators:

Cheri Bustos, D-Ill.
Chris Collins, R-N.Y.
Jim Costa, D-Calif.
Joe Courtney, D-Conn.
Rodney Davis, R-Ill.
Suzan DelBene, D-Wash.
Jeff Denham, R-Calif.
Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio
Pete Gallego, D-Tex.
John Garamendi, D-Calif.
Chris Gibson, R-N.Y.
Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.M.
Richard Hudson, R-N.C.
Ann McLane Kuster, D-N.H.
Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y.
Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
Mike McIntyre, D-N.C.
Rick Nolan, D-Minn.
Martha Roby, R-Ala.
Kurt Schrader, D-Ore.
Austin Scott, R-Ga.
David Scott, D-Ga.
Glenn Thompson, R-Pa.
Scott Tipton, R-Colo.
Juan Vargas, D-Calif.
Filemon Vela, D-Tex.
Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
Tim Walz, D-Minn.

Voting NO on the animal fighting amendment:

Dan Benishek, R-Mich.
Mike Conaway, R-Tex.
Rick Crawford, R-Ark.
Scott DesJarlais, R-Ga.
Bill Enyart, D-Ill.
Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn.
Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio
Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo.
Steve King, R-Iowa
Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif.
Frank Lucas, R-Okla.
Randy Neugebauer, R-Tex.
Kristi Noem, R-S.D.
Colin Peterson, D-Minn.
Reid Ribble, R-Wisc.
Mike Rogers, R-Ala.

Abstaining on animal fighting vote:

Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Calif.

 

A Radical Federal Attack on States’ Rights

The House Agriculture Committee will take up the Farm Bill tomorrow morning, and will consider an amendment offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that seeks to negate most state and local laws regarding the production or manufacture of agriculture products. It’s a radical federal overreach that would undermine the longstanding Constitutional rights of states to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens and local businesses.

The amendment takes aim at state laws such as California’s Proposition 2, approved overwhelmingly by voters across the state in 2008—to ban extreme confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and veal calves in small crates and cages—and a law passed subsequently by a landslide margin in the state legislature, with the support of the egg industry, to require any shell eggs sold in California to comply with the requirements of Prop 2. In addition, the King amendment seeks to nullify state laws in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington (and a bill that could be signed into law soon in New Jersey) dealing with intensive confinement of farm animals. It could also undo laws on horse slaughter and the sale of horsemeat in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Texas, bans on the sale of foie gras produced by force-feeding ducks and geese, bans on possession and commerce of shark fins in California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, a series of farm animal welfare regulations passed by the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, and potentially even bans on the sale of dog and cat meat.

Legal safeguards and standards that protect by far the majority of Americans, maybe all Americans depending on ultimate interpretations, as well as protections for untold millions of farm animals, would be upended by this power grab. All of these laws were duly passed by legislators, voters, or regulators. It’s not the proper role of Congress to eviscerate what the states are doing, especially when so many lawmakers say they are for states’ rights. The states have a role in agriculture policy, too.

In fact, Rep. King’s proposal violates the Tenth Amendment’s guarantee that the states’ sovereign rights cannot be abridged by Congress, and tries to eliminate states’ police powers within their borders, destroying the fundamental principles of federalism that have guided our nation since its founding. It would force states to allow commerce in products they have banned. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate commerce; it doesn't give Congress the authority to mandate its creation, nor to require anyone to participate in commerce they find objectionable.

The King amendment is most directly an attack on the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments, H.R. 1731 and S. 820, which would ratify an agreement between the egg industry and animal welfare groups. Historically, when Congress preempts state laws it is in order to replace them with a uniform national standard, and that is the idea behind the egg bill. If there is a problem with interstate commerce caused by conflicting state laws, such as on the housing of egg-laying hens, it should be solved with a uniform national standard that provides regulatory certainty and is supported by the key stakeholders—the egg industry, veterinary groups, animal welfare groups, and consumer groups—as is H.R. 1731/S. 820. Rather than having a reasonable national standard, King wants no standards at all, state or federal.

While the King amendment ostensibly seeks to target animal welfare, it is so broad and vague that it could be interpreted to nullify an entire swath of state laws dealing with food safety, labeling, labor, and environmental protection. It could trigger expensive court cases about any state law related to agricultural products. Here are just some examples of state laws under the King amendment’s ax:

• Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Washington laws requiring labeling of farm-raised fish
• Vermont’s ban on BPA in baby food jars and infant food containers
• Maryland’s ban on arsenic in poultry feed
• California’s Proposition 65 requiring the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, and businesses to notify citizens about significant amounts of chemicals in products, homes, workplaces, or released into the environment
• state pollution standards, such as bans on spraying sewage on crops directly before they are fed to people, and laws such as Minnesota’s requiring farmers to hire a licensed sludge applicator and restricting when and how sludge can be applied to cropland or pasture
• bans on use of dangerous pesticides on crops, such as California’s ban on methyl iodide use for strawberries
• Iowa’s labeling requirements and germination standards for seeds
• Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin laws restricting firewood transported into the state in order to protect against invasive pests and damage to local forests
• Iowa’s prohibition on sale of raw milk
• Iowa’s ban on use of any fat or oil other than milk fat in milk, cream, ice cream, and certain other dairy products
• Iowa’s requirement for labeling of artificial sweeteners in products
• South Dakota’s label requirements for distiller’s grains sold as livestock feed to specify sulfur percentage
• various laws concerning agricultural employment, including child labor laws, standards for inspections and certification programs, laws governing use of dangerous farm machinery (such as Washington’s mandate for certain guards on farm field equipment including tractors), and health and safety standards for agricultural employees (such as Washington’s code regulating issues including field sanitation, pesticides, respiratory hazards, and hearing loss prevention)

Now is the time for every citizen concerned about animal welfare, food safety, labeling, environmental requirements, labor standards, and other issues to take action. Call your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121, especially if he or she serves on the House Agriculture Committee, and tell them to reject the King amendment and its radical assault on duly-enacted state laws covering a broad spectrum of concerns.

With Farm Bill Looming, Make a Call to Help Hens

As the House and Senate agriculture committees are both scheduled to take up the Farm Bill next week, there is much at stake for animal welfare. The Senate draft of the bill includes a provision to crack down on people who attend and bring children to dogfights and cockfights, based on the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act. Federal law enforcement must have the needed tools—as state law enforcement already has in 49 states—to take action against those who are fueling the industry with their blood money, and to make sure that they and the perpetrators who blend into the crowd when the feds arrive don’t get off scot-free. We are grateful to Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and Ranking Member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., for including the animal fighting legislation in their draft, and we hope the Senate and House both approve it in the final Farm Bill.

As David Rogers reported in Politico, however, the Senate bill does not include legislation based on an agreement between the egg industry and animal welfare groups to improve the treatment of laying hens. The Washington lobbyists for the beef and pork industries have been attacking the legislation, even though the egg bill focuses on that commodity only. They just don’t like any animal welfare policies at the state or federal levels, and they fear any “precedent” regardless of how reasonable the standards are. Never mind that federal law already includes standards on transport and slaughter of livestock, that these same industries are all too happy to take federal tax dollars in the form of subsidies and to have federal laws covering various other aspects of animal agriculture policy, and that the only industry that is actually impacted by this egg legislation is strongly in favor of it.

The bill amends the Egg Products Inspection Act—which has never dealt with beef or pork—and would provide each laying hen with nearly double the current amount of space, along with environmental enrichments such as nests, perches, and scratching pads so they can engage in more natural behaviors. It would also ban inhumane practices such as forced starvation molting, and create an egg carton labeling program so consumers have more clear and reliable information in the marketplace about how hens were raised. When adversaries come together and provide a solution that is good for animals, good for consumers, and good for egg producers, it should be a no-brainer for Congress, and shouldn’t be scuttled due to the petulant caterwauling of unaffected parties on the sidelines.

We are working hard to find a pathway to get this legislation passed. Now is the time to take action and tell your two U.S. senators and U.S. representative to support the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments, S. 820 and H.R. 1731. Please call them today at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to support this common-sense legislation to help consumers, farmers, and hundreds of millions of animals.

Meanwhile, the House committee is likely to consider an amendment by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that is a direct attack not only on the egg industry legislation but also on all animal welfare laws. The King amendment seeks to nullify state laws on animal issues, but doesn’t replace them with any uniform federal standard as a reasonable alternative, as the egg legislation would do. It’s a massive overreach, and could have an impact not only on state laws dealing with factory farming, but also shark finning, horse slaughter, puppy mills, and any subject related to food safety, labor, and environmental standards for agricultural products. The people who are saying the federal government has no business being involved in animal welfare apparently don’t think the states or their voters should have any say either—it’s an attack on states’ rights and should be vigorously opposed, especially when there is such a rational alternative put forward by the industry that’s impacted.

Horse Slaughter Not a Risk Worth Taking

I’ve pointed out many times on this blog that the horse slaughter industry in the U.S. is cruel and predatory, gathering and killing horses in particularly gruesome ways. It’s a sad fate for so many American horses—iconic companion animals not raised for human consumption but often ending up on foreign dinner plates. The entire horse slaughter pipeline, from auction to transport to the cruel slaughter process, is terrifying and inherently inhumane for horses. Slaughter-bound horses are crammed tightly into trailers, hauled long distances without food, water or rest, and are subjected to injury and even death due to inadequate conditions before many of them can even make it to slaughter.

Unfortunately, the recent news of the grisly deaths of 30 horses bound for slaughter on Interstate 81 in Lisle, New York, isn’t surprising and underscores our grave concerns with this terrible industry. The horses, apparently purchased by kill-buyer Bruce Rotz at an auction in Pennsylvania, were on their way to a Canadian slaughter plant when they were burned alive in a trailer on the side of an interstate. This accident and others involving horses being transported to slaughter not only take a toll on animals but also put an unnecessary strain on law enforcement and emergency response teams that are already strapped for resources—not to mention putting public health and safety at risk.

Virtually all horses who end up in the slaughter pipeline begin their lives as American pets or sport horses who are taught from an early age to trust human beings. Over the course of their lives, a variety of legal and illegal drugs are constantly administered to these animals. Americans do not eat horses and do not raise them for food, unlike other animals raised for slaughter who are maintained within a regulated industry. Many of the substances given or applied to horses carry the explicit warning that they are not to be used in food producing animals, yet the horse slaughter industry continues to peddle the toxic product to consumers. The recent horsemeat scandal in the European Union is a preview of what could happen in this country should the USDA approve any of the applications currently in the pipeline that would give the green light to horse slaughter plants returning to American soil, operating near cattle slaughter plants and leading to concerns over comingling.

A national poll conducted in 2012 revealed that 80 percent of Americans favor a ban on horse slaughter for human consumption and recognize that we have a responsibility to protect these sensitive creatures who have assisted mankind in so many ways for centuries. The Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act, (S. 541/H.R. 1094) will prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption in the U.S. and end their export for slaughter abroad. This bill will protect our nation’s horses from the violent and predatory horse slaughter industry by guaranteeing that our horses are not butchered on domestic or foreign soil.

Tomorrow, Congressman Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., will join representatives from animal welfare organizations at the headquarters of the Philadelphia Police Department's Mounted Unit to call on Congress to pass this critical legislation. Meehan is part of a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers from both the U.S. House and Senate who last month introduced the SAFE Act. The Philadelphia Police Department's Mounted Unit has partnered with Last Chance Ranch to rescue horses from potential slaughter. Horses threatened by slaughter are adopted by the Mounted Unit and receive training and veterinary care during their service with the police department.

Long-distance transport of horses to slaughter—whether in the U.S. or over our borders—is not a risk worth taking, given that it’s a fundamentally disreputable industry. In memory of the slaughter-bound horses who burned to death, as well as the thousands of other horses sent to slaughter every day, please contact your two U.S. senators and your U.S. representative at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to support the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act. Then, take action by sending an email to your legislators to reiterate your support for this bill.

Podcast: Bipartisan Support to Crack Down on Animal Fighting

I was a guest this week on SiriusXM’s POTUS channel, to discuss the need for the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act. With all the divisive and partisan issues in Congress, here’s an example of Republicans and Democrats coming together to support a bill that would crack down on criminal dogfighting and cockfighting and make our communities safer. You can listen to the interview here, and then take action by contacting your own lawmakers in support of the animal fighting bill.

Michael Markarian - Animals & Politics Podcast

All Eyes on the Kentucky Derby, and Needed Reform

In what other professional sport is it acceptable for 24 athletes to die each week? With millions of Americans watching the Kentucky Derby this weekend, it’s an important time to take stock of the horseracing industry and the critical reforms that are needed to protect the welfare of its equine competitors—because the toll in animal deaths and injuries year after year is far too great and so many of them are preventable.
 
As Joe Drape reported in The New York Times, when lawmakers return to Washington after Derby weekend, a bipartisan group will introduce legislation to address the patchwork of state laws that govern horseracing and the ongoing failure of the industry to self-police. A previous New York Times study examined 150,000 horse races from 2009 to 2011 and found that minimal oversight, doped horses, and inconsistent regulations are putting both horses and jockeys in jeopardy.
 
U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Reps. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., and Joe Pitts, R-Pa., plan to introduce the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, which addresses many of the most serious issues faced by the horse racing industry. In an effort to give their horses an edge, trainers abuse illegal drugs such as cobra venom and South American tree frog juice, which are far more powerful than morphine. But legal therapeutic drugs are also problematic because they can allow a horse to push through pain, intensifying an injury which can lead to breakdowns, career ending injuries, and death.
 
If passed, the legislation would designate the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) as the independent anti-doping organization for interstate horseraces. USADA, a non-profit, non-governmental agency, is recognized by Congress as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic sports; it would create rules regarding the use in racing of permitted and prohibited substances and develop anti-doping education, research, testing, and adjudication programs. Any racetrack that wanted to offer “simulcast” wagering, where most of the industry’s money is made, would first need to have an agreement with USADA. That agreement would include covering the costs of the anti-doping measures. This bill would cost taxpayers nothing.
 
Currently each state’s racing commission sets its own rules, allowing trainers to escape oversight by simply moving to another state. With no national governing body for the sport—like an NHL, NFL, or NBA—there is no consistency across the country. The new legislation includes stiff penalties for cheating, a “one and done” lifetime ban for the most severe types of doping, a “three strikes, you’re out” for other serious medication violations, and suspensions for rules violations that apply nationwide. The bill will also prohibit race day medication of horses, with a ban on the use of furosemide (“Lasix”) to be phased in over two years.
 
The racing industry’s half-hearted attempts at reform have failed to protect race horses from being treated as disposable, rather than highly skilled athletes and companions, despite a number of high-profile incidents and scathing exposés. Just as Congress and the nation have taken seriously the problems of doping in baseball, bicycling, and other sports, it’s time to get serious about doping in horseracing. Please contact your two U.S. senators and your U.S. representative at (202) 224-3121, and urge them to support and cosponsor the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act.

Felony Cruelty Laws in 49 States and Counting

This week, Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed Senate Bill 2211 into law, making North Dakota the 49th state in the nation to establish some felony-level penalties for malicious acts of animal cruelty. It was a long time coming, and a follow up to last year’s Measure 5 campaign, which put the issue of animal cruelty on the public agenda and spurred action by state lawmakers.

Every major newspaper in the state called on legislators to honor their word to voters and get the job done, or else prepare for another ballot initiative in 2014. The bill was watered down by the North Dakota Farm Bureau and other agribusiness interests during the legislative process, and fell short of the comprehensive reform that was promised to voters, but it’s a major step forward and is cause for celebration.

Now, only one state in the nation remains without any felony law for even the most vicious and intentional acts of cruelty: South Dakota. In the broader sense, it has been a tremendous march of progress over the last three decades, as animal advocates across the country have worked to upgrade and fortify the state anti-cruelty statutes, and have completely reshaped the legal framework on crimes against animals.

Prior to 1986, only four states (Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma and Rhode Island) had felony provisions for animal cruelty. Since then, 45 states have taken action to enact felony penalties for malicious acts of cruelty—an average of five new states every three years. In the last decade alone, eleven states have moved from the misdemeanor to felony category—Kentucky, West Virginia and Wyoming (2003), Kansas (2006), Hawaii (2007), Alaska and Utah (2008), Arkansas (2009), Mississippi (2010), Idaho (2012) and North Dakota (2013).

Research indicates that people who abuse and kill animals are more likely to similarly abuse humans, and animal cruelty is a known predictor and indicator of other violent crimes. Studies have found that there was animal abuse in 88 percent of families who were under state supervision due to the physical abuse of their children, and a U.S. Department of Justice study beginning in 1987 found that animal abuse predicted which children would exhibit anti-social and aggressive behavior later in childhood, adolescence, and then adulthood. Passage of felony-level animal cruelty laws is a critical initial step in halting the progression of violent crime before it escalates.

Now that all but one state have felony cruelty laws, our movement must focus on South Dakota, which has become an outlier because of its weak penalties for malicious cruelty. And now that stronger laws are on the books in so many states, we must focus on training programs for police, sheriffs, and prosecutors on effective investigation, case-building, and prosecution of animal cruelty, to make sure the statutes are properly utilized and adequately enforced.

Urge Congress to Help Hundreds of Millions of Hens

Today in the U.S. Congress, a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Reps. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., Jeff Denham, R-Calif., Sam Farr, D-Calif., and Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., reintroduced legislation that ratifies a national agreement between the egg industry and animal welfare groups to improve the treatment of 280 million laying hens. Under the terms of the bill, the entire U.S. egg industry would be transformed and would phase out barren battery cages where hens can barely move an inch for their entire lives. 

The measure would also provide the following improvements: each hen would have nearly double the current amount of space and environmental enrichments such as perches, nests and scratch pads so they can engage in more natural behaviors; it would ban inhumane methods of euthanasia and forced starvation molting; and it would require a national egg carton labeling program to give consumers more information about how hens are raised so they can make informed purchasing decisions in the marketplace.

Congress deals with so many polarizing issues every day, whether it’s health care, immigration, or the deficit. They are often unsuccessful in efforts (or don’t even try) to pull opposing sides into a room and negotiate a compromise. But here is an issue where the bulk of that work has been done and all the major stakeholders have already reached an agreement that improves animal welfare, helps consumers, and is good for egg producers and the economy. The legislation is backed by an unusually broad and diverse coalition of supporters, including animal protection, egg industry, veterinary, and consumer organizations. The nation needs this kind of consensus problem solving, and Congress should enthusiastically embrace it.

The only major opposition to the bill comes from some segments of the pork and beef lobbying groups, who don’t want to see any “precedent” for the federal government getting involved in animal welfare. Never mind that federal law already includes standards on transport and slaughter of livestock, that these same industries are all too happy to take federal tax dollars in the form of subsidies and to have federal laws covering various other aspects of animal agriculture policy, and that the only industry that is actually impacted by this egg legislation is strongly in favor of it.

With the House and the Senate both planning to take up the Farm Bill in the next few weeks, it’s critically important that your Senators and Representative hear from you in support of the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments. Please call them at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to support this common-sense legislation to help consumers, farmers, and hundreds of millions of animals.

Hold the Line on Animal Welfare Funding

Congress has made important progress over the years addressing serious gaps in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s enforcement of key animal welfare laws by providing the agency much-needed funding to allow for better inspection programs. The USDA’s own Inspector General had issued damning audits in late 2010 regarding the agency’s woefully lax oversight of puppy mills under the Animal Welfare Act, and its weak efforts to rein in the cruel practice of “soring” show horses (deliberately inflicting severe pain on the horses’ legs and hooves to make it hurt for them to step down, so they will exaggerate their high-stepping gait and win prizes), which is prohibited under the Horse Protection Act. Despite intense budget pressures, Congress responded to these concerns—in 2011, it enacted significant increases in USDA’s budget to improve enforcement of both the AWA and the HPA, building on modest gains since 1999. But for 2012, Congress passed a budget with a 2.5 percent across-the-board cut for all USDA programs, including those affecting animal welfare.

Now Congress is gearing up to consider the Fiscal Year 2014 appropriations bills. Every agency program has some political support in Washington, or it would never have been funded in the first place, and those programs and their supporters are competing for finite dollars. The budget pressures haven’t gone away, but neither have the terrible problems at puppy mills or in the horse soring industry, nor the pressing need for adequate oversight of other facilities covered by the AWA, such as laboratories, roadside zoos, and circuses. We must ensure that Congress doesn’t further erode the critical gains of the past decade.

There are other areas that can be cut, as we have proposed  to Congress as it considers ways to reduce the deficit—for example, warehousing chimpanzees in costly laboratory cages; rounding up wild horses to keep them in long-term holding pens; using inefficient, unreliable, very costly, and cruel animal testing when much better alternative methods are available; taxpayer-financed poisoning of wildlife; and massive subsidies for wealthy operators of huge factory farms.

Congress can achieve macro-level cuts while still taking care to ensure that specific small and vital accounts have the funds they need. Whether an animal welfare law will be effective often turns on whether it gets adequately funded. Having legislators seek that funding is crucial, especially when there are strong competing budget pressures as there are now. Our fortunes are intertwined with those of animals, and proper enforcement not only helps these creatures but also helps to protect consumers and improve food safety, public health, disaster preparedness, and other social concerns.

Last week, Congressmen Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., delivered a letter to the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee seeking funds in Fiscal Year 2014 to hold the line on last year’s funding levels for enforcement of key animal welfare laws. It demonstrated exceptional support for these needs, with a bipartisan group of 164 Representatives joining the effort. We are grateful to these lawmakers for making the case for important enforcement resources.

Now our attention turns to the Senate and we need your help. Senators Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and David Vitter, R-La., are circulating a parallel letter to the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and they are asking their colleagues to co-sign it by this Thursday. The funds requested in the letter are modest, but are critically needed to implement and enforce the Animal Welfare Act, the Horse Protection Act, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the federal animal fighting law, and programs to help prepare for the needs of animals in disasters and to address the shortage of veterinarians in rural and inner-city areas and USDA positions.

There are already 25 Senators who’ve agreed to lend their support. Please check this list, and if you see both your two Senators and your one Representative, thank each of them for stepping up. If either or both of your Senators aren’t on the list, please contact them today. You can find your federal legislators’ names and contact information here.

Please urge your two U.S. Senators to co-sign the Senate animal welfare funding group letter being circulated by Senators Boxer and Vitter, or make their own parallel individual requests, before the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee’s deadline of April 26th.

This is just the latest installment in a multiyear effort. The HSUS and HSLF have been steadily building the enforcement budgets for these laws, recognizing that laws on the books won’t do animals much good if they’re not enforced. Over the past fifteen years, for example, we’ve succeeded in boosting the annual funding for enforcement of the AWA by 188 percent (a cumulative total of more than $120 million  in new dollars to the program). Today, there are 127 AWA inspectors, compared to about 60 during the 1990s, to help ensure basic humane treatment at thousands of puppy mills, research laboratories, roadside zoos, circuses, and other facilities.

With your help, Congress can sustain these efforts to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. It’s an investment in the animals’ future—and our own.

Horsemeat Scandal Still Riding at a Gallop

The horsemeat scandal is still having a ripple effect across Europe, as officials announced this week that about 5 percent of beef products—everything from frozen lasagna to Swedish meatballs—tested positive for containing horse DNA. More than 7,000 tests were conducted throughout all 27 countries in the European Union, with the most equine content showing up in France and Greece, where about one in every eight beef products in those two countries was actually horse. In Britain, about 2 percent of all products tested positive for phenylbutazone, an equine painkiller banned from the human food chain.

The test results are shocking, but don’t even account for the dozens of other veterinary drugs commonly used to treat horses, and the lack of any tracking mechanisms when horses are scooped up from random sources and put into the horse slaughter pipeline. As Humane Society International European Union Director Joanna Swabe, Ph.D., noted:

Testing for just one of the many drugs banned for use in animals that enter the food chain falls short of a precautionary and thorough approach to addressing fraud and ensuring food safety standards are met. It isn’t just phenylbutazone (“bute”) in horsemeat that poses a potential risk to human health. The European Commission has failed to seek tests for a whole host of other banned veterinary drugs, which are commonly administered to horses, and is thereby failing the public by allowing meat from these animals to be sold in the European Union in contravention of its own food safety and consumer protection regulations.

It’s one more reason for the U.S. Congress to pass the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act, S. 541 and H.R. 1094, introduced by Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Reps. Pat Meehan, R-Pa., and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. About 20 percent of the horsemeat sold in Europe comes from North American horses, many of them used for competition and companionship and given veterinary medicines throughout their lives. And some would-be horse slaughter profiteers are actively trying to open plants here in the U.S., which would make it much more difficult to avoid the type of commingling and food fraud—with horsemeat being passed off as beef—that we saw in Europe.   

Yesterday, New Mexico Attorney General Gary King expressed his “grave concerns over the potential health risks associated with consumption of horse meat” processed at a proposed horse slaughtering plant in his state, noting that the experience in Europe shows there is no foolproof way to be certain that horsemeat will not enter the human food chain here in the U.S. We applaud the state and federal officials who are speaking out—recognizing that the predatory killer buyers who outbid families and rescue groups so they can scoop up healthy horses and sell their meat by the pound are not providing a “service” to horses, but are creating threats to our equine companions and to food safety here and abroad.