H. R. 503 - The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act

It is a tragedy that we need to tell our country that it is wrong to slaughter horses to put food into the mouth of foreign interests.  It is not to feed their poor or needy, but to satisfy culinary peculiarities.  Likewise, the profits from this industry do not benefit U.S. corporations, but foreign owned companies.

HISTORY

7/27/06 Hearing before Agriculture Committee scheduled, where it is expected that Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) will attempt to alter the bill dramatically due to his opposition.  Congressman Goodlatte is the same individual who originally held up the bill for two years after it was first introduced in 2003, despite the fact that sponsorship had exceeded the number needed to pass the House.  What intere$t does Mr. Goodlatte have in being such a strong opponent to this bill?  Stating "economic reasons" he seems to have a better than average interest in the profits of foreign owned subsidies.  Perhaps the "economic reasons" are his own?

Articles re: Results of 7/27/06 Agriculture Committee Hearing (two very dissimilar reports on the same event)
Anti Slaughter Side More on the Ag Committee amendments below	Pro Slaughter Side More on their  FOOD CHAIN below

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

~Aldous Huxley

Quote from Representative Robert Goodlatte following hearing: ""More and more members of the House are becoming aware of the problems with this legislation.  It's driven by emotion. We certainly understand and respect people's emotion, but there are a lot of facts that get in the way of thinking that this bill would work out for the benefit of horses. It wouldn't. It would create many, many, many unwanted horses who would be mistreated and create a multitude of problems."  Now, I ask you, how is it that Mr. Goodlatte is the superior authority regarding what is in the best interest of the horse?  Take the time to read the Pro Slaughter  Side above and you will notice striking dissimilarities in the terminology of opposing points of view.  The Pro Slaughter faction refers to the slaughterhouses as employing "euthanasia" on the horses.  As defined by Webster, euthanasia is "The act of killing someone painlessly (especially someone suffering from an incurable illness)."  It is further defined as "humane destruction."  Somehow, it seems rather doubtful that being stunned by a captive bolt, then hung to bleed out with death by a severed artery, falls within that definition.  It would be better termed "execution."  Goodlatte receives campaign contributions from the slaughterhouses through their lobbyist Jim Bradshaw.

Additionally, from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 7/29/06, in an article lauding former West Texas Representative Charles Stenholm for his efforts to aid the slaughter industry :

"Afterward, the committee voted 37-3 to send the measure to the floor with an unfavorable recommendation after adding 'poison pill' amendments that may guarantee its defeat. One of the amendments would exempt the three plants from what Goodlatte called a 'draconian' measure."

I wonder how hard the Agriculture Committee laughed when they did that.

Former Representative Charles Stenholm is now employed as senior advisor for the firm of Olsson, Frank and Weeda, P.C., who represents the slaughterhouses (Charlie Stenholm, Senior Government Affairs Advisor, Olsson, Frank and Weeda and spokesperson for the three processing plants).  Beltex was a contributor to the Stenholm for Congress Committee.

Goodlatte and Stenholm (through Olsson, Frank, and Weeda) are cheek to cheek in their quest to "buddy up" with their meat industry contributors.

The following, are the "poison pill" amendments to H.R. 503 which the Agriculture Committee proposed:

(Andrew Cohen article, "Slaughtering a Good Horse Bill," from the Washington Post, best sums up the strategy behind the "poison pills.")

THEY WERE NOT ATTACHED SUCCESSFULLY TO H.R. 503