HR-6513-119
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsored by Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit any person from breeding, possessing, buying, selling, or transporting American mink raised in captivity for fur production, whether the animals are alive or dead, including any parts or products derived from them. Exemptions would apply to certain entities already recognized under the Lacey Act, such as zoos and scientific research institutions. The bill would also authorize the federal government to purchase existing mink farms at a price based on the farm's three-year average mink population and the value of its physical infrastructure, subject to available appropriations.
Who benefits
U.S. mink farmers who choose to sell their operations would receive a federally funded buyout. Animal welfare advocates and organizations opposed to fur farming would see a policy goal achieved. Consumers who prefer fur-free products may benefit from a clearer domestic supply chain. Public health researchers and officials concerned about zoonotic disease transmission from mink farms — mink were identified as a reservoir and amplifier of COVID-19 variants — would see a risk reduced. Wildlife conservationists concerned about escaped farmed mink as an invasive species would also benefit.
Who is hurt
The approximately 200–250 remaining U.S. mink farmers (concentrated in Utah, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Idaho) who do not sell would be forced out of business. Farm workers and employees at mink operations would face job losses. Fur auction houses, processors, and retailers that handle domestically produced mink fur would lose a supply source. Trappers and others in the broader fur trade supply chain could face indirect market disruption. Consumers who purchase mink fur products may face reduced domestic supply and higher prices. Taxpayers would bear the cost of the buyout program to the extent Congress appropriates funds for it.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that mink farms pose a documented public health risk: during the COVID-19 pandemic, farmed mink in the U.S. and Europe were confirmed to harbor and transmit SARS-CoV-2 variants back to humans, prompting mass culls of millions of animals in Denmark, the Netherlands, and the U.S. They contend that confining thousands of mink in close quarters creates conditions for zoonotic disease amplification and spillback, and that a proactive ban — paired with fair compensation for farmers — is a proportionate response to a demonstrated biosecurity threat. They further argue that the U.S. mink farming industry has already declined sharply, with the number of farms falling from over 1,000 in the 1980s to roughly 200 today, making a managed wind-down economically feasible.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill imposes a categorical federal ban on a legal agricultural activity without demonstrating that existing disease-control authorities — such as USDA's existing animal disease response powers — are insufficient to manage biosecurity risks. They contend that the buyout program, subject to appropriations, provides no guaranteed compensation, leaving farmers exposed to a taking of their livelihoods without assured payment. They further argue that the bill sets a precedent for Congress to ban entire agricultural sectors based on speculative or manageable risks, and that mink farmers — many of whom are multi-generational family operations — deserve the opportunity to adopt enhanced biosecurity standards rather than face an outright prohibition.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce in mink and mink products is well-established under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which has historically supported federal regulation of agricultural commodities. The buyout provision is voluntary and compensatory, which reduces Takings Clause (5th Amendment) concerns, though the prohibition itself — if it effectively destroys the economic value of existing farm operations — could invite regulatory takings challenges under Penn Central or Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council doctrine.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to prohibit an entire agricultural sector; the Secretary of Agriculture would administer the buyout program, subject to congressional appropriations; federal courts would retain jurisdiction over enforcement actions and any takings or Commerce Clause challenges.
Historical precedent
The federal government conducted a voluntary buyout of tobacco quota holders under the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004, which phased out a federal price-support program and compensated farmers — a structurally similar mechanism of pairing a prohibition on a legacy agricultural practice with federal compensation.