Agribusiness Friendly Conference Committee Undermines Downed Animal Protection Provision of the Farm Bill
May 2002

After both the House and Senate passed their version of the Farm bill, a conference committee was convened to reconcile differences between the two bills. Under House and Senate rules, the conference committee is only allowed to address areas of a bill where the House and Senate bills were in disagreement. Downed animal protection was not an area of disagreement in the Farm bills. Both bills contained nearly identical language on this point. Nevertheless, defying the clearly expressed will of a majority of both the House and Senate, House conferees, led by Texas Congressmen Combest (R-TX) and Stenholm (D-TX), stripped the downed animal provisions from the Farm bill. In place of downed animal protection, which required downed animals to be humanely euthanized, they called for the Secretary of Agriculture to "investigate and submit to Congress a report" on the downed animal issue. This "report-in-lieu-of-legislation" is a common tactic.

The result of the conference committee's negotiations, called the Conference Report, was sent back to the full House and Senate for final approval. Farm Sanctuary and other animal advocates fought passage of the Conference Report, which had gutted the downed animal protection legislation as well as many other animal welfare provisions.

When the House began debate on the Conference Report, Congressman Ackerman took to the House floor and spoke passionately about the plight of downed animals, urging his colleagues to reject the conferees' changes to the Farm Bill. The following is an excerpt from Congressman Ackerman's remarks:

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition. After over a decade of work, I was tremendously pleased to see that my amendment to ban the marketing and movement of downed animals at auctions and stockyards and to require that these animals be humanely euthanized was included in both the House and Senate version of the Farm Security Act. Today I am disappointed to report that this commonsense legislation to protect the safety of our Nation's food supply, and to end the suffering of downed animals was severely neutered during conference committee negotiations. The transport and marketing of these incapacitated sick or crippled animals creates tremendous human health concerns as well as humane concerns. Downers make up only one-tenth of 1 percent of the market. And not to euthanize them just because then they couldn't be marketed for human consumption, is indeed a sin. . . I want to emphasize that my downed animal amendment passed both bodies; it has 165 cosponsors...

Despite Congressman Ackerman's heroic efforts, and remarks made by others such as Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), on May 2, 2002 the House approved the Farm Bill Conference report by a vote of 280 to 141 on May 2, 2002, and the Senate approved the Farm Bill on May 8, 2002 by a vote of 64 to 35.

Sadly, the Downed Animal Protection amendment was not the only victim of the Farm Bill conference committee. Conferees attacked virtually every animal welfare measure in the Farm Bill. The cockfighting amendment to close a loophole in the law that currently allows some birds to be shipped interstate for fighting was included in identical form, word for word, in both the House and Senate Farm Bills. Nevertheless, conferees took the liberty of creating their own version, substantially weakening the amendment. In addition, conferees stripped a widely supported bear protection amendment and a popular amendment regulating puppy mills. The committee also removed a limitation on the amount of money factory farms can receive in taxpayer assistance in disposing of their pollution.

YOU CAN HELP:

Although the downed animal provision was stripped from the 2002 Farm Bill, the Downed Animal Protection Act is still under consideration. We will not give up the fight until downed animals are no longer marketed. You can help by urging your members of Congress to to co-sponsor these important bills.

Historical Points of Interest

For the first time since the Humane Slaughter Act was enacted in the 1950's, farm animal protection legislation has passed both the United States House or Representatives and the United States Senate. This legislation, which prohibits the marketing and dragging of downed animals at stockyards and requires these incapacitated animals to be humanely euthanized, has now been included in both the House and Senate Farm Bills.

The Senate Farm Bill was passed on February 13th, 2002 and includes a downed animal provision that was championed by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI). This provision is nearly identical to the downed animal legislation which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 5th, 2001 as part of the House Farm Bill. In the House, the downed animal measure was championed by Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Amo Houghton (R-NY) in a floor amendment.

The Farm Bill, including the downed animal protection measure, will be sent to the President for his signature after the conference committee, and unless something unusual and drastic occurs, downed animals will finally be protected from intolerable abuse under federal law!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

After being bottled up in the House Agriculture committee for 10 years, the Downed Animal Protection Act finally passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, October 5th, 2001. The measure was proposed as an amendment to the Farm Bill on October 4th by Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Representative Amo Houghton (R-NY). It was accepted as part of the Farm Bill, which then passed the House of Representatives on October 5th.

FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001 -- (House of Representatives - October 04, 2001)

Title III of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, (7 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 318. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.

``(a) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

``(1) HUMANELY EUTHANIZE.--The term `humanely euthanize' means to kill an animal by mechanical, chemical, or other means that immediately render the animal unconscious, with this state remaining until the animal's death.

``(2) NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.--The term `nonambulatory livestock' means any livestock that is unable to stand and walk unassisted.

``(b) UNLAWFUL PRACTICES.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer, market, hold, or drag any nonambulatory livestock unless the nonambulatory livestock has been humanely euthanized.

``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--

``(A) NON-GIPSA FARMS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any farm the animal care practices of which are not subject to the authority of the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration.

``(B) VETERINARY CARE.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a case in which nonambulatory livestock receive veterinary care intended to render the livestock ambulatory.

``(c) APPLICATION OF PROHIBITION.--Subsection (b) shall apply beginning one year after the date of the enactment of the Farm Security Act of 2001. By the end of such period, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section.''.

(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment to prevent the marketing of downed animals.

As I stand here before you, the most horrific problem of animal abuse in the meat industry continues unchecked. A sick cow, unable to stand, is pulled off a truck by a tractor with a chain, then falls 4 feet to the ground at a stockyard. A frail day-old calf is dragged through an auction ring by a rope tied to its back leg while another calf, nearly comatose, is left in a corner dying. These are downed animals. The transport and marketing of these incapacitated animals creates tremendous human health concerns as well as humane concerns.

These animals, known as downers, suffer beyond belief as they are kicked, dragged, and prodded with electric shocks in an effort to move them at auctions and intermediate markets en route to slaughter. They make up nearly one-tenth of 1 percent of the market. And not to euthanize them just because they are of no value when they are dead at marketplace is indeed a sin.

It is practically impossible to move these animals humanely, so they are commonly dragged with chains and pushed around with tractors and fork lifts. In addition to brutal handling, downed animals routinely suffer for days without food, water, or veterinary attention. Livestock markets are not equipped nor can they be expected to provide these incapacitated animals with the intensive care they require, nor do we wish to saddle them with these costs. The only humane option for nonambulatory livestock at intermediate markets is euthanasia.

My amendment to protect both the public health and the downed animals prohibits marketing of all nonambulatory livestock at intermediate markets, and it requires that incapacitated animals be humanely euthanized at these facilities. This amendment does not apply to activities on farms, and it does not preclude veterinary care. It provides an appropriate remedy to an unnecessary and inexcusable practice.

The problem of downed animals has been addressed by many conscientious livestock organizations who have voluntarily adopted a no-downer policy in an effort to end this inhumane and cruel practice which can also pose a serious threat to our public health. Meat from downed animals has an increased risk for bacterial contamination and other diseases, including neurological afflictions such as mad cow disease. The veterinary services department at the USDA itself, Mr. Chairman, has said that downed animals are the number two risk for mad cow disease. This is not a fringe idea.

Last year, the USDA itself instituted a policy precluding the purchase of beef from downed animals for the national school lunch program because of these safety concerns.

How on God's Earth can they justify marketing this to the rest of the country, when they say it is unsafe to put in our school lunch program?

In addition to this, the fast food chains are doing the appropriate thing. Chains such as McDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's have all banned the use of meat from downed animals in their products. And who else? California, the largest cattle producer in the country, Colorado and Illinois, have already prohibited the entry of downed animals into the food supply. Why just them? All Americans must be protected from this risk.

And who else is in support? This measure is endorsed by the Central Livestock Association, which is composed of 25,000 producers in five Midwestern States alone. It is endorsed by Empire Livestock Marketing, the Georgia Cattlemen's Association, and the National Pork Producers Council; and the National Cattlemen's Beef Producer Association have put in their code of ethics that they will not use downers.

And yet, and yet, there are some who kowtow to the few irresponsible folks within the industry in order to protect only one-tenth of 1 percent of the market.

Earlier this year a Zogby America Poll of 1,000 people in our country found that four out of every five opposed the use of downed animals for human food. Yet despite a strong consensus within the livestock industry, the animal welfare movement and 80 percent of consumers that downed animals should not be sent to the stockyards, this practice continues, causing unnecessary animal suffering and an erosion of the public confidence in their food. We need to remedy this atrocity.

I urge all who are concerned about public health, all who are concerned about the humane treatment of animals to support the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington). The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. ACKERMAN) has expired

(By unanimous consent, Mr. ACKERMAN was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to join in supporting the Ackerman amendment to help bring an end to the horrific abuse of our Nation's food animals and to protect our Nation's food supply. I ask that all of us vote in favor of the amendment.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The hour is late, Mr. Chairman, but I think this is an important amendment; and I rise in strong support of the Ackerman-Houghton downed animal amendment. I want to thank them for bringing this issue to the floor.

This amendment would prohibit the marketing of non-ambulatory livestock, or so-called downed animals, at intermediate markets and would require these sick animals to be humanely euthanized. This amendment is important for two simple reasons: humans should not be exposed to food at risk for contamination, and there absolutely is no excuse for animal cruelty.

Animal cruelty can and should be minimized in our country's slaughterhouses. Downed animals, unable to walk on their own, are almost impossible to humanely move due to sheer size and weight. Instead, they are chained, pulled, dragged, and prodded with electric shocks.

Current policies do nothing to force handlers to treat sick animals humanely, and instead some of them are even pushed by bulldozers into dead piles, where they eventually succumb to their injuries in unimaginable pain.

Equally important, meat from downed animals is at risk for bacterial contamination. According to a recent Zogby poll, four out of five Americans oppose the use of downed animals for food. Also the USDA has instituted a policy precluding the purchase of beef from downed animals for national school lunch programs because they believe this meat is unsafe for consumption. That should tell us something.

Our Nation must humanely produce meat that is safe for everyone to eat. Due to the obvious animal suffering and the threat to human health that downed animals pose, humane euthanasia is the only reasonable solution. It is civilized to oppose needless animal cruelty and inexcusable to allow it to continue.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Ackerman-Houghton amendment.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to make a few observations for our colleagues. The Animal Welfare Act already contains provisions that forbid needless intentional abuse of livestock anywhere. Also I want to make my colleagues aware of the concern of the American Veterinary Medical Association regarding the prohibition on holding downer animals could prevent diagnose and treatment of downer animals. Just because an animal is down does not mean necessarily that it cannot get up, provided you give it medication.

Also our veterinarians tell us and USDA tells us that examination of downer livestock at markets and slaughter plants is an important part of our system to monitor for animal diseases such as BSE and tuberculosis. In other words, if we do not give our veterinarians time at livestock markets to examine what is truly wrong with that animal, if you immediately euthanize them, we perhaps may be setting back that which the authors of this amendment intend to happen.

Now, I will not oppose the amendment tonight because, again, we all agree that animals should not be abused. That is already against the law. But I would hope as we pursue this through the conference and we work with the gentleman from New York to make sure that this accomplishes everything that he and those who support the amendment intend, but I would point these possible unintended consequences of this amendment that might need further work as we pursue it through the conference.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment by my colleagues from New York to prevent the marketing of downed livestock. On a daily basis, animals so sick that they can barely stand are dragged into the market to be sold to slaughterhouses. That is abusive and torturous, it is bad treatment of these sick and injured animals, it is cruel and it places our food supply at risk.

In response to the fact that meat from downed animals is more likely to be contaminated, the USDA now prohibits the purchase of beef from downed animals into the National School Lunch Program. Major fast food restaurants forbid the use of downed animals in their products. While we can compliment these small measures, we must give the USDA the authority to deal with the downed animal problem.

In order to protect both our animals and our food supply, we need to prevent the marketing of downed livestock. I urge my colleagues to join me in the support of this amendment

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Our agricultural policy in the United States has been very strong about humane treatment for animals that are to be used for profit. What this amendment does is address animals that will be slaughtered. These are animals that are in stockyards, that are going to either be auctioned or have been auctioned, and are downed, which means they are animals that have been injured. They tend to be either old dairy cows or male calves born into dairy herds and sold for veal.

I think this amendment continues a policy which this House adopted a few years ago which said when you transport animals to slaughter that they have to be transported in a humane fashion. We have humane slaughter practices. We have humane transportation plants, not only for slaughter, but for every agricultural livestock animal there is, from chickens to rabbits. The whole gambit of transportation is controlled by Federal law and State law as well.

The Zogby poll of U.S. adults found that 79 percent oppose the use of downed animals in human food supply. You have just heard of the prohibitions that we already have in law about using downed animals in certain school lunch programs and so on.

What I want to remind the House is that in all cases these are animals that are being used for a profit, for corporate investment, to make a profit on the product of these animals, and what is being asked here is to adopt the same sound humane practices that we require for every other link in that chain.

I think it is an appropriate amendment for us to address, and I hope the committee will adopt it.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the gentleman from New York that I think the committee would be certainly willing to accept the amendment.

I do want to point out, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM) did, some of the same concerns there are. No one is going to try to justify the inhumane treatment of an animal, but there are a couple of issues that I do think we need to try to make for sure that we address as we are looking through this.

This has been an issue that for some time has obviously been discussed. It may have been the gentleman's bill back in 1996, H.R. 2143, on which Secretary Glickman wrote a letter to the committee in this regard, and, again, just a couple of points. One of the things that I think highlights this is that it says, ``This bill may cause some producers of livestock to dispose of sick and diseased animals outside of normal marketing channels. This would increase the risk of these animals being slaughtered for human consumption without appropriate inspection.'' Obviously, I think, none of us would want that to occur.

``As well, downed animals are one of the bases of BSE or mad cow disease test regime.'' We certainly know the implications that this has in other countries, as it has had around the world, and how fortunate we are to be able to keep that out. I would not want us to do something that would in fact increase the chances of not being able to catch those diseases early.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman has no interest in any of these unintended consequences, but these are things that have been expressed and looked at over a period of time that we certainly would like to try to make sure we might be able to, as we work through this, even perfect more, without undermining the intent of the gentleman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his accepting of our amendment. We really appreciate it. I am absolutely delighted to work with the gentleman on those concerns that he has just raised, which are very, very legitimate and are of concern to us to make sure these are ameliorated as it moves forward.

Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and urge passage of the amendment.