As in recent years, the annual congressional appropriations process continues to be a key path for us to seek progress for animals. The legislation funding programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration is a top priority because appropriations-focused lobbying and policymaking makes it possible to address a wide range of species and issues at one time and in one package.
Working closely with animal-friendly congressional leaders across party lines, we secured some hard-won animal protection gains in the passage of the FY 2024 Agriculture Appropriations bill by the House Appropriations Committee last night.
On horse slaughter for human consumption, the annual defund language for which we have consistently advocated remains intact in the underlying bill. This critical language enacted every year since FY06 (except FY12 and FY13) has prevented the return of horse slaughter on American soil.
With respect to non-animal methods development for research and testing, the Committee included language we requested—backed by a bipartisan group of 186 Representatives led by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Chris Smith (R-N.J.)—on non-animal methods development for research and testing. The language directs the U.S Food and Drug Administration to allocate existing funds to reduce animal testing and advance alternative methods and asks for a report providing details on the status and progress of the New Alternative Methods Program within the agency.
We were pleased that the Committee also reiterated language on cosmetics testing included in last year’s Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act that animal testing should not be used for the purposes of safety testing on cosmetic products. With 10 of the largest states now having laws on the books and an overwhelming majority of the personal care products industry in the United States supporting federal legislation to end new animal testing for cosmetics, it’s high time for Congress to move beyond encouragement and for the FDA to prohibit this unnecessary cruelty.
Several other matters we raised are part of the Committee’s directives to the USDA, too. The Committee encouraged the agency’s Office of Inspector General to increase its efforts to combat illegal animal fighting, noting that this activity is not simply cruel but carries the potential to spread the highly contagious Virulent Newcastle Disease and avian flu.
The Committee reinforced prior directives about humane slaughter and its concern that the principles of Good Commercial Practices (GCP) govern the handling of birds at slaughter. It called again for robust training of inspectors conducting humane handling and slaughter regulations and directives, and for proper use of tracking systems and associated reports to ensure humane handling of animals as they arrive and are offloaded and handled at each stage of the slaughter process.
As we’ve done for many years, we supported funding for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program that encourages veterinarians to locate in underserved areas, and the Committee sustained the program’s FY23 level of funding.
We also were encouraged by the Committee’s decision to extend funding for coordination between the USDA’s Animal Care Program and the Federal Emergency Management Agency on a national disaster response plan and support for state and local governments’ efforts to plan for assisting people with animals. The Committee maintained the FY23 funding levels to “support hazard preparedness and response for zoos and aquariums, and implementation of emergency contingency plans for all facilities regulated under the AWA.”
We were glad that the Committee pressed the USDA to “use its full enforcement capabilities under the AWA against chronic violators” and report back on its efforts, including case referrals to the Office of General Counsel, the Department of Justice, or both.
That said, we can’t always count on the gains of prior years surviving through each new appropriations cycle, and that’s frustrating. For example, we thought we had won the fight against the agency’s “teachable moments” program, which ended last year at congressional direction. This year, the Committee directs USDA to provide a scientific evaluation of the teachable moments program. Guiding AWA-regulated facilities on how to remedy shortcomings is one thing. But in many instances, strong enforcement action is warranted, and teachable moments are no substitute, nor should they be used to cover up violations.
Given the continuing abysmal cruelties associated with horse soring in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, we have pushed for strong budgetary support for enforcement of the Horse Protection Act. Last year, we helped to secure record funding of more than $4M. However, following calls by some representatives for a broad return to FY22 levels, the House committee bill shaves one million dollars off last year’s HPA allocation.
We were also disappointed to see the Committee zero out funding for a critical program that provides grants to expand sheltering options for domestic violence survivors and their pets, first authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill and funded since then. In each of the last two years, we’ve had to fight to sustain it in the final package.
We are grateful for the support of House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) on key items, and to Ranking Member Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) for his continued strong leadership. But we owe our supporters great thanks, also, because together, we have successfully incorporated some critical animal protection concerns into one of the nation’s most important funding packages.
As this legislation heads to the House floor and the Senate prepares to take up its own version, we’ll keep fighting to ensure that these gains stick. Make sure to watch the blog for updates.