Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to a provision inserted in the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Title 1 section 142 states ``Any excess animal sold under this provision shall no longer be considered to be a wild-free roaming horse or burro for purposes of this Act.'' This section completely reverses the goal of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which was aimed at stopping wild horses and burros from being harvested for commercial poses without limitation.
The Bureau of Land Management, BLM, oversees approximately 261 million acres.
More than 29 million acres of this land is used for wild horse and burro grazing. BLM's responsibilities with regard to caring for wild horses and burros were created by the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act in 1971. Although the act's primary concern is caring for wild horses and burros, it also permits BLM to lease this land for several purposes, such as grazing, mining, and parks. The act and subsequent regulations require BLM to manage wild horses and burros on public lands and protect them from unauthorized capture, branding, harassment, death, and ensure their humane care.
Current law prohibits the sale of wild horses and burros for processing into commercial products. Section 142 will undermine these efforts by allowing wild horses and burros that are at least 10 years old or have been put up for adoption three times to be auctioned. As a cosponsor of the American Horse Protection Act, along with 227 other Members, I am appalled that wild horses and burros could possibly be captured for slaughter.
Horses that are sent to slaughter are often crammed into double decker trailers, where conditions are so bad that many horses arrive at the slaughtering facility injured. Moreover, since there are no export tariffs on horse meat, no profits from this industry remain in America. The profits go directly to Belgium and France, which is where the owners of the only slaughter houses in the United States live. More importantly, the provision is a devastating blow to the equine industry, because they have worked diligently to protect horses from slaughter.
Section 142 was inserted during conference negotiations, leaving many members unaware of the new provision and its impact. In addition, no stand-alone legislation has been introduced and, to my knowledge, the House Resources Committee had not seen this language. Because this provision was inserted behind closed doors, no congressional authorizing committee had an opportunity to comment on this provision and its impact.
Additionally, no hearings have been held to get feedback from BLM on possible alternatives. In fact, since 1988, every Department of Interior Appropriations bill has included language that states, ``Appropriations herein made shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractor.'' Coincidently, this language was left out this year. I believe that if this language was brought before the full House for a vote as stand-alone legislation it would fail, because clearly the majority of the House has gone on record opposing the slaughter of horses.
Mr. Speaker, it does not speak well of this institution when individual members of the House and Senate can change 16 .years of policy by sneaking a provision into the Omnibus without disclosure, discussion, or public knowledge. Horses are part of our American heritage and hold a favored status. They are not food animals in this country and, unlike cows, pigs, and chickens, they should not be bred, raised, or gathered for slaughter.