PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Sep 29, 2020
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020
This bill recognizes the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority for purposes of developing and implementing a horseracing anti-doping and medication control program and a racetrack safety program.
The authority shall establish an anti-doping and medication control standing committee and a racetrack safety standing committee to provide guidance to the authority on the development and maintenance of the programs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) shall have oversight over the authority. The authority shall submit to the FTC any proposed rule, standard, or procedure developed by the authority to carry out the horseracing anti-doping and medication control program or the racetrack safety program. The authority shall seek to enter into an agreement with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency or an entity equal in qualification under which the entity acts as the anti-doping and medication control enforcement agency under this bill.
Among the required elements of the horseracing safety program are sets of training and racing safety standards consistent with the humane treatment of horses, a system to maintain track surface quality, programs for injury and fatality analysis, investigation and disciplinary procedures, and an evaluation and accreditation program.
The bill sets forth other provisions regarding (1) funding, conflicts of interest, and jurisdiction; (2) registration with the authority; (3) program enforcement; (4) rule violations and civil sanctions; (5) testing laboratories; (6) review of final decisions of the authority by an administrative law judge; (7) unfair or deceptive acts or practices; and (8) agreements with state racing commissions.
People & committees
Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4973-4980)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 454.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 116-554.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 116-554.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1754.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4973-4983)
Mr. Pallone moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 46 - 5.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 13, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1754 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1754 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1754 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1754 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.