PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 1, 2004
Amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act to apply "non-ambulatory" to cattle, sheep, goat, swine, horse, mule, or other equine that, at the time of examination and inspection, is unable to rise from a recumbent position or unable to walk for any reason, including nerve paralysis, metabolic conditions, or central nervous condition disorder, unless the reason for such inability is fatigue or one or more broken or fractured appendages, severed tendons, or ligaments, or dislocated joints.
Considers as adulterated cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and other equines found at inspection: (1) to be non-ambulatory; (2) to test positive for central nervous disorders; (3) to exhibit signs of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; or (4) to be dead.
People & committees
Rep. Rehberg, Dennis R. [R-MT-At Large] · R–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. 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.4121 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.4121 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.4121 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.4121 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.