Inside D.C.

Silly, but dangerous, Farm Bill amendments

While the drama of the House Farm Bill’s demise last week, its resurrection – it’s hoped – during the week of June 22 or soon thereafter, and the much-awaited Senate Agriculture Committee version of omnibus ag legislation is enough for most ag policy wonks, let us not forget there’s silliness at play as well as these two bills evolve.

By silliness, I mean so-called “animal” language already part of the House Farm Bill, with animal rights groups already targeting the Senate bill for more.

“Animal” language translates to those dire issues of animal “welfare” which activist groups contend must be dealt with using the weight of federal law.  The list of potential animal welfare/rights amendments includes dog and cat meat (not a practice here), animal fighting (already a federal crime), horse soring (already a federal crime), animal “snuff” films (already a federal crime) and a host other animal rights priorities.  So goofy did this situation become, the House Agriculture Committee basically acted to forestall all “animal amendments.”

So far, the House Farm Bill includes a section, inexplicably authored on behalf of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) by Rep. Jeff Denham (R, CA), to make it a federal crime to slaughter dogs and cats for human consumption or sell their meat.  Denham’s amendment, accepted during full committee markup — for a whole lot of political reasons with no bearing on animal welfare — amends the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and would mete out punishment for violating the proposed change in the law of up to one year in prison and a fine of $2,500.

“Adopting this policy signals that the United States will not tolerate the disturbing practice in our country,” Denham said.  One could argue the U.S. does not tolerate the practice as it’s not known to exist in the U.S., unless you take the word of HSUS.

The animal fighting amendment expected during the Senate Agriculture Committee markup would take the current federal prohibition on animal fighting – which includes a previous Farm Bill amendment that made it illegal to take a minor child to an animal fight – and make sure it applies to all U.S. territories and protectorates.  Sen. Cory Booker (D, NJ), PETA’s sexiest vegetarian celebrity back in 2013, is the author of a bill on his side of Capitol Hill.  Said PETA upon Booker’s election to the Senate from his job as Newark, N.J., mayor: “We’re betting that on Cory’s watch, special interests such as big ag are going to have a hard time getting bills pushed through that allow animals to be abused.”

The reason this silliness is allowed to pollute the Farm Bill process is purely political.  Members, who for whatever reason have achieved a high HSUS animal-friendly rating, want to be able to tell their voters, “See how much I love animals.”  At the same time, HSUS and other animal rights groups have had no significant or even minor congressional victories in the last several years, so fundraising gets tougher when you can’t point at the “win” column.  They argue, somewhat desperately, “Look at all the stuff ag gets; we just want this one little amendment.”

Members and their staffs reason that absent direct harm to agriculture, biomedical research or other legitimate animal use – meaning loud and embarrassing public outrage – such legislation is harmless.  Actually, it’s the congressional version of the old axiom, “Give them something; make them go away.”

Agriculture and other legitimate animal users are guilty of allowing this to happen.  To give any sort of credibility to a movement which seeks to ultimately put you out of business, is short sighted. I’ve heard national ag groups say out loud, “We can’t get involved because we’re saving our political capital for our priority issues” or “Dog and cat meat don’t affect us, so we’re not getting involved.”  Like I said, painfully myopic.