The Animal Welfare Act: Background and
Selected Legislation
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
September 27, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22493
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
Summary
In 1966, Congress passed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (P.L. 89-54) to prevent pets from
being stolen for sale to research laboratories, and to regulate the humane care and handling of
dogs, cats, and other laboratory animals. The law was amended in 1970 (P.L. 91-579), changing
the name to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The AWA is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Congress periodically has amended the
act to strengthen enforcement, expand coverage to more animals and activities, or curtail
practices viewed as cruel, among other things. A 1976 amendment added Section 26 to the AWA,
making illegal several activities that contributed to animal fighting. Farm animals are not covered
by the AWA.
In the 110th Congress, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 137; P.L.
110-22) was enacted. The bill amended Section 26 of the AWA to strengthen provisions against
animal fighting. The AWA was amended again in 2008 when provisions were included in the
2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). These provisions ban the importation of puppies under six months
of age for resale, tighten prohibitions on dog and other animal fighting activity, and increase
penalties for violation of the act.
Other AWA bills introduced in the 110th Congress included the Pet Safety and Protection Act
(H.R. 1280/S. 714) to restrict where research facilities could obtain their dogs and cats; Haley’s
Act (H.R. 1947) to make it unlawful for animal exhibitors and dealers (but not accredited zoos) to
allow direct contact between the public and big cats such as lions and tigers; the Animal
Protection and Accountability Improvement Act (H.R. 2193), to prohibit the use of animals in
marketing medical devices and products; and the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (H.R.
6949/S. 3519), to require an AWA license from USDA of dog breeders who raise more than 50
dogs in a 12-month period and sell directly to the public.
In the 111th Congress, two of the bills were reintroduced: the Pet Safety and Protection Act (H.R.
3907/S. 1834); and the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (H.R. 5434/S. 3424). Both bills
were referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, where they saw no further action.
The 112th Congress has reintroduced two bills and introduced several new bills. The Puppy
Uniform Protection and Safety Act was reintroduced as H.R. 835 and referred to the House
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. The Pet Safety and Protection Act (H.R. 2256/S.
707) was also reintroduced and referred to the same subcommittee. The Animal Fighting
Spectator Prohibition Act (S. 1947) was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The bill would impose criminal penalties for attendance at
animal fighting exhibitions. This prohibition on attendance was also added to the Senate farm bill
(§12213, S. 3240). The Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act (H.R. 3359) would amend the
AWA to prohibit the exhibition of an exotic or wild animal in any animal act if, during the
previous 15 days, such animal was traveling in a mobile housing facility. H.Res. 736 expresses
disapproval of using gas chambers to euthanize shelter animals. The Great Ape Protection and
Cost Savings Act of 2011 (H.R. 1513/S. 810), was also reintroduced in the 112th Congress. The
bill would prohibit conducting invasive research on great apes (e.g., chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla,
orangutan, gibbon) and provide a retirement sanctuary for the nearly 1,000 great apes still used
for research in the United States. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee. In the Senate, the bill was ordered to be reported out of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works with an amendment favorably.
Congressional Research Service
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
Contents
Key Provisions of the Animal Welfare Act...................................................................................... 2
Animals Covered....................................................................................................................... 2
Businesses and Activities Covered............................................................................................ 2
Standards ................................................................................................................................... 3
Oversight and Enforcement ............................................................................................................. 3
Legislative History........................................................................................................................... 4
Original Law.............................................................................................................................. 4
Animal Welfare Act of 1970...................................................................................................... 4
Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976................................................................................ 4
Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act...................................................................... 4
Protection of Pets....................................................................................................................... 5
2002 Amendments ..................................................................................................................... 5
Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 ............................................................ 5
2008 Farm Bill................................................................................................................................. 6
Animal Fighting......................................................................................................................... 6
Puppy Imports; Penalties for AWA Violations........................................................................... 6
Dogs and Cats in Research ........................................................................................................ 6
Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2009 ............................................................................................. 7
Other Selected Bills ......................................................................................................................... 8
Animal Protection Accountability Improvement Act ................................................................ 8
Haley’s Act ................................................................................................................................ 8
Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act ................................................................................ 8
Sense of Congress to Ban Shelter Gas Chambers ..................................................................... 9
Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011................................................................. 9
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 10
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
he Animal Welfare Act (AWA; 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) is intended to ensure the humane
treatment of animals that are intended for research, bred for commercial sale, exhibited to
T the public, or commercially transported. Under the AWA, businesses and others with
animals covered by the law must be licensed or registered, and they must adhere to minimum
standards of care. Farm animals are among those not covered by the act, which nonetheless
provides a broad set of statutory protections for animals.1
The law was first passed in 1966 following several years of lobbying by animal welfare
organizations and growing public outcry over allegations that large numbers of pets were being
“dognapped” for sale to medical research laboratories. Congress amended the original law in
1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, and 2002. These amendments generally were intended to expand the
scope of the AWA or to clarify various provisions. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) administers the AWA. The House
and Senate Agriculture Committees have exercised primary legislative jurisdiction over the act
and its amendments.
Animal welfare advocacy organizations have continued to back proposals to further extend the
reach of the AWA. Several such proposals were introduced in the 110th Congress. The Pet Safety
and Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 3907/S. 1834) was reintroduced in the 111th Congress, as was
the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (H.R. 5434/S. 3424). The bills saw no further
action in the 111th Congress.
The 112th Congress has reintroduced two bills and introduced several new bills. The Puppy
Uniform Protection and Safety Act was reintroduced as H.R. 835 and referred to the House
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. The Pet Safety and Protection Act (H.R. 2256/S.
707) was also reintroduced and referred to the House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and
Poultry. The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (S. 1947) was introduced and referred to
the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The bill would impose criminal
penalties for attendance at animal fighting exhibitions. This prohibition on attendance was also
added to the Senate farm bill (§12213, S. 3240). The Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act
(H.R. 3359) would amend the AWA to prohibit the exhibition of an exotic or wild animal in any
animal act if, during the previous 15 days, such animal was traveling in a mobile housing facility.
Another bill, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011 (H.R. 1513/S. 810), was also
reintroduced in the 112th Congress. The bill would prohibit conducting invasive research on great
apes (e.g., chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon) and provide a retirement sanctuary
for the nearly 1,000 great apes still used for research in the United States. The bill was referred to
the Subcommittee on Health of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In the Senate, the
bill was ordered to be reported out of the Committee on Environment and Public Works with an
amendment favorably.
1 Legislation introduced, but not passed, in the 111th Congress, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty (H.R. 4733)
would have restricted federal purchases of food products derived from animals to those raised free from cruelty and
abuse. Numerous other federal laws seek to protect other classes of animals, often those from the wild. Examples
include the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Lacey Act as amended, and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
Act. These and the others are described, with legal citations, in CRS Report 94-731, Brief Summaries of Federal
Animal Protection Statutes, by Vivian S. Chu.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
Key Provisions of the Animal Welfare Act2
Animals Covered
The act applies to any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or
other warm-blooded animal determined by the Secretary of Agriculture to be for research or
exhibition, or used as a pet. The AWA explicitly excludes birds, rats, and mice bred for research;
horses not used for research; and other farm animals used in the production of food and fiber.3
Animals sold in retail facilities are not covered, unless they are wild or exotic animals. Cold-
blooded animals like fish and reptiles also are excluded from coverage.
Businesses and Activities Covered
Generally, animal dealers and exhibitors must obtain a license, for which an annual fee is
charged. APHIS does not issue a license until it inspects the facility and finds it to be in full
compliance with its regulations. If a facility loses its license, it cannot continue its regulated
activity. Those who conduct research, and general carriers that transport regulated animals, do not
need a license but must still register with APHIS and undergo periodic inspections. Specific
details follow.
Dealers, including pet and laboratory animal breeders and brokers, auction operators, and anyone
who sells exotic or wild animals, or dead animals or their parts, must have an APHIS license for
that activity. So-called Class A licensees are breeders who deal only in animals they breed and
raise; all others are called Class B licensees. Exempt from the law and regulations are retail pet
stores, those who sell pets directly to pet owners, hobby breeders, animal shelters, and boarding
kennels.
Exhibitors must be licensed by APHIS as such. These so-called Class C licensees include zoos,
marine mammal shows, circuses, carnivals, and promotional and educational exhibits. The law
and regulations exempt agricultural shows and fairs, horse shows, rodeos, pet shows, game
preserves, hunting events, and private collectors who do not exhibit, among others.
Animal transporters must be registered, including general carriers (e.g., airlines, railroads, and
truckers). Businesses that contract to transport animals for compensation are considered dealers
and must have licenses.
Research facilities must be registered. They include state and local government-run research
institutions, drug firms, universities, diagnostic laboratories, and facilities that study marine
mammals. Federal facilities, elementary and secondary schools, and agricultural research
institutions are among those exempt from registration.
Animal fighting generally is prohibited by the AWA. The ban includes dogfights and bear and
raccoon baiting; sponsors and exhibitors are subject to penalties. The AWA also has banned bird
fights, except in the states where they are not prohibited by state law (namely Louisiana and New
2 Unless noted, sources on the AWA are various materials provided by APHIS.
3 For example, rabbits raised for food are exempt from AWA coverage; those for pets are not.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
Mexico), and the sponsor or exhibitor was unaware that the transaction had occurred in interstate
commerce.
Standards
All licensed and registered entities must comply with USDA-APHIS regulations, including
recordkeeping and published standards of care. These standards deal with humane handling,
shelter, space requirements, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, veterinary care, and
transport. (AWA regulations are at 9 C.F.R. §1.1 et seq.)
Oversight and Enforcement
APHIS’s Animal Care (AC) program oversees the AWA, under which approximately 12,000
facilities were licensed or registered in FY2011. For 2012, AC had an annual budget of nearly
$28 million.4
AC officials make unannounced inspections of registered and licensed facilities to ensure
compliance with all rules. Under the AWA, research facilities are to be inspected at least annually.
Inspection frequency for other AWA-regulated facilities is based on risk; for example, moderate-
risk facilities are to be visited about once yearly. APHIS inspectors also conduct searches to
identify unlicensed or unregistered facilities. Failure to correct deficiencies can result in
confiscation of animals, fines, cease-and-desist orders, or license suspensions.
In 2010, USDA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released an audit of AC’s investigations
of large-scale dog dealers (i.e., breeders and brokers) that failed to provide humane treatment for
the animals under their care.5 In a previous audit of laboratory animals, the OIG found that AC
did not aggressively pursue enforcement actions against violators of AWA. The May 2010 audit
determined that (1) AC’s enforcement process was ineffective against dealers with repeated
violations; (2) APHIS misused its guidelines to lower penalties for AWA violators; and (3) some
large breeders circumvented AWA by selling animals over the Internet.6 APHIS concurred with
the OIG’s findings and has implemented 13 of the 14 recommendations as of FY2012.
4 A portion of this amount, $696,000, was used to administer the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§1821-1831), which
makes it a crime to exhibit or transport any “sore” horse, i.e., one whose feet have been injured to alter its gait. In an
August 2010 petition, the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, the American Horse Protection Association, and Friends of Sound Horses, Inc., have requested that APHIS
tighten its regulations for horses by permanently barring from competition any horse scarred from soring and requiring
horse organizations to impose penalties for violations. APHIS is considering comments on the proposed changes until
June 13, 2011. See Federal Register, vol. 76, no. 71: 20569, April 13, 2011.
5 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Care Program Inspections of Problematic Dealers, May, 2010.
Report accessible at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf.
6 Large breeders that sell AWA-covered animals over the Internet are exempt from AC’s inspection and licensing
requirements due to a loophole in AWA. The IG report recommended that APHIS prevent large breeders from
circumventing AWA requirements by seeking legislative change to exclude these breeders from the definition of “retail
pet store,” and require that all applicable breeders that sell through the Internet be regulated under AWA. The Puppy
Uniform Protection and Safety Act (H.R. 835), reintroduced in the 112th Congress, would close the existing AWA
loophole.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
Legislative History
Original Law
Although long known as the Animal Welfare Act, the original law was passed simply as P.L. 89-
544, and referred to as the “Laboratory Animal Welfare Act” of August 24, 1966. The law
requires dealers in dogs and cats for research purposes to obtain a USDA license and to abide by
USDA-set humane treatment requirements. It also requires a research facility to register with
USDA only if it uses dogs or cats and either (1) purchases them in interstate commerce or (2)
receives federal research money. The law authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to set humane
handling standards for guinea pigs, nonhuman primates, rabbits, and hamsters as well as dogs and
cats—but only dealers and research facilities with dogs and cats are subject to these standards.
Farmers and pet owners are among those exempted from the law. Other provisions spell out
recordkeeping requirements, enforcement authorities and penalties for noncompliance.
Animal Welfare Act of 1970
P.L. 91-579 renamed the “Laboratory Animal Welfare Act” the Animal Welfare Act and expanded
animal coverage to include all warm-blooded animals determined by the Secretary to be used for
experimentation or exhibition, except horses not used in research and farm animals used in food
and fiber research. The 1970 law also incorporated exhibitors; defined research facilities; and
exempted from coverage retail pet stores, agricultural fairs, rodeos, dog and cat shows.
Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976
The 1976 amendments (P.L. 94-279) added Section 26 to the AWA. Section 26 is directed at
animal fighting and made illegal (1) sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting
venture; (2) interstate shipment of animals to be used in animal fighting ventures; and (3) use of
U.S. mails or communication systems to advertise or promote animal fighting ventures. Section
26 contained its own definitions, authority for investigations, and penalty provisions. The 1976
amendments also clarified and expanded previous regulations covering animal transport and
commerce. Hunting animals are generally exempt. The amendments passed over the objections of
USDA and the U.S. Attorney General, who believed that animal fighting was a state and local law
enforcement issue.
Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act
These amendments were passed as Title XVII, Subtitle F, of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L.
99-198, the omnibus 1985 farm bill). The law directs the Secretary to set new minimum standards
of care for handling, housing, feeding, water, sanitation, ventilation, and so forth. One new
provision that was highly contentious at the time singles out two species by requiring standards
for the exercise of dogs and the psychological well-being of primates. The law provides that
research facilities must have procedures that minimize pain and stress to the animals, and
describes practices considered to be painful. Each research facility must establish an Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee to review research proposals that involve animal
experimentation and to provide oversight of laboratories. The amendments also increase civil and
Congressional Research Service
4
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
criminal penalties for AWA violations, and establish an animal welfare information center at
USDA’s National Agricultural Library.
Protection of Pets
Section 2503 of the Food Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-624, the
1990 farm bill) extends pet protections. It requires public and private animal shelters and research
facilities that acquire dogs and cats to hold them for at least five days to allow time for either
adoption or recovery by the original owner before they can be sold to a dealer. Dealers are
prohibited from selling dogs and cats they did not breed unless they provide certified records on,
among other things, the animals’ origin. Other new recordkeeping requirements also are
specified.
2002 Amendments
Title X, Subtitle D, of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171, the
omnibus 2002 farm bill) makes it a misdemeanor to ship a bird in interstate commerce for
fighting purposes, or to sponsor or exhibit any bird in a fight with knowledge that any of the birds
were so shipped (even fights within a state where the practice is permitted). The law also
increases the maximum financial penalty for a violation (a misdemeanor) of the anti-fighting
provisions of the AWA, to $15,000 from $5,000. The 2002 law also explicitly excludes from AWA
coverage birds, rats, and mice bred for research purposes. The Secretary of Agriculture had
previously published regulations excluding these animals from coverage, which the Animal Legal
Defense Fund challenged in federal court. When USDA agreed to settle the case by essentially
reversing its regulations, Congress (in P.L. 106-387, the FY2001 agriculture appropriation)
blocked the action by prohibiting funds for such a rule change. The 2002 law made the exclusion
a permanent part of the AWA.7
Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007
P.L. 110-22, signed into law May 3, 2007, makes a violation of the animal fighting provisions of
the AWA a felony punishable by up to three years in prison, under Title 18 of the U.S. Code
(Crimes and Criminal Procedure). The law, based on companion bills introduced by
Representative Gallegly (H.R. 137) and Senator Cantwell (S. 261), also makes it a felony to trade,
in interstate and foreign commerce, knives, gaffs, or other sharp objects designed for use in
animal fighting, or to use the Postal Service or other “interstate instrumentality to trade in such
devices, or to promote an animal fighting venture.”
Proponents of various animal fighting bills had observed that in 2001, the House and Senate
approved strong animal fighting sanctions in their respective farm bills, but that conferees on the
final 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) removed the felony language. Proponents argued that stronger
deterrents were needed because animal fighting is a brutal, inhumane practice that is closely
associated with criminal activity, endangers children where aggressive dogs are being reared, and
may contribute to the spread of avian influenza in the case of live birds. Opponents countered that
such measures would violate provisions in the U.S. Constitution that protect states’ rights,
7 CRS Report 94-731, Brief Summaries of Federal Animal Protection Statutes, by Vivian S. Chu.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
including the Commerce Clause, and that recognize private citizens’ right to travel for economic
reasons. Completely banning and/or stiffening penalties for all animal fighting activities would
drive them further underground, undermining efforts to protect animals and the public from any
disease problems created by such activities, other opponents have argued.
While animal fighting is prohibited, attendance at animal fighting exhibitions is not. The Animal
Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (S. 1947), introduced in the 112th Congress, would impose
criminal penalties for attendance at animal fighting exhibitions, or for causing a minor to attend
an animal fight. This prohibition on attendance was also added to the Senate farm bill (§12213, S.
3240).
2008 Farm Bill
Animal Fighting
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) contains a number of amendments to the AWA. One section
(§14207) strengthens further the definitions of, and penalties for, activities related to animal
fighting. For example, maximum imprisonment rises to five years from the current three years.
The animal fighting provision is based on language in S. 1880 and H.R. 3219 (110th Congress)—
bills introduced shortly after the July 17, 2007, indictment of NFL quarterback Michael Vick on
charges related to dog fighting—to more explicitly ban various dog fighting activities, and to
define the term.8
Puppy Imports; Penalties for AWA Violations
The 2008 farm bill also requires regulations to prohibit importation for resale of dogs unless they
are at least six months of age, in good health, and have all necessary vaccinations, with
exemptions for research, veterinary treatment, or imports into Hawaii from certain countries.
Another section (§14214) increases the maximum penalty for a general violation of the act from
the current $2,500 to $10,000 for each violation. APHIS published in the Federal Register on
September 1, 2011, their intention to implement these regulations. The regulations would require
that live dogs imported in the Unites States for resale, research, or veterinary treatment be
accompanied by an import permit issued by APHIS. The final rule has not been published as of
August 2012.
Dogs and Cats in Research
Both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the 2008 omnibus farm bill had contained the
language of two other pending bills (the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2007; H.R. 1280/S. 714)
to restrict where research facilities could obtain their dogs and cats. This language was deleted by
conferees; the final version instead directed USDA to review “any independent reviews by a
nationally recognized panel of experts” on Class B use by researchers. Conferees said in
accompanying report language that they were aware of concerns regarding use of random source
8 Another bill, H.R. 3327, included the provisions of H.R. 3219 and S. 1880, as well as language to enable animal
humane agencies to initiate civil actions where violations are alleged.
Congressional Research Service
6
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
animals from Class B dealers. However, they observed that USDA’s FY2008 appropriation (part
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, P.L. 110-161) had requested such an independent
review.
Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2009
Critics have long asserted that the limited number of Class B dealers who still collect dogs and
cats from random sources, including “free to a good home” classified ads, auctions, and flea
markets, are more concerned about profit than animal welfare. Others have contended that
passage would leave no viable sources of random source dogs and cats, which are needed by
medical and veterinary researchers because of their genetic and age diversity; and that the
majority of Class B dealers are in compliance with the AWA.
The NRC issued its report in May 2009. It concluded that random source dogs and cats may be
desirable and necessary for certain types of biomedical research but that “it is not necessary to
acquire them through Class B dealers, as there are adequate numbers of such animals from
shelters and other sources.”9 The NRC noted that of the more than 1,000 Class B dealers in the
United States, at last count only 11 of them acquired and sold live dogs and cats for research and
teaching. The report’s conclusions and recommendations apply only to these 11 dealers that may
supply such animals for research funded by the National Institutes of Health, the authors stated.
The report discusses in more detail the advantages and disadvantages of random source dogs and
cats, which constitute less than 1% of all laboratory animals; evaluates the Class B dealer system,
under which (it found) animal standards of care appear to vary greatly; and offers alternative
options for obtaining random source animals. These alternatives include partnering with pet
owners, veterinarians, breeders, and others; obtaining animals from Class A dealers and through
donations from small breeders and hobby clubs; and acquiring animals directly from pounds and
shelters, among others.10
The Pet Safety and Protection Act, originally introduced in the 110th Congress, was reintroduced
in the 111th Congress as H.R. 3907/S. 1834, and reintroduced in the 112th Congress as Act (H.R.
2256/S. 707). The bills would amend the AWA to limit the sources of random source dogs and
cats to a licensed dealer (under Section 3 of the AWA) who has bred and raised the animal; a
publicly owned or operated pound or shelter that meets certain qualifications; someone donating
the dog or cat that bred and raised the animal or owned it for not less than one year; and research
facilities licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The bill also would subject violators to a fine
of $1,000 per violation, over and above any other applicable penalties.
9 NAS, Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats (Report in Brief), May 2009. The
entire report is at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12641.
10 In light of violations noted by APHIS inspections, GAO also noted in a September 2010 report that APHIS’s
oversight of dealers who provide “random source” dogs and cats for research was in needed tighter managerial
controls. See USDA’s Oversight of Dealers of Random Source Dogs and Cats Would Benefit from Additional
Management Information and Analysis. GAO-10-945, September 2010.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
Other Selected Bills
Two bills were offered in the 110th Congress, but did not re-emerge as proposals in the 111th
Congress: the Animal Protection and Accountability Improvement Act and Haley’s Act.
Animal Protection Accountability Improvement Act
H.R. 2193 would have amended the AWA to prohibit the use of animals in marketing medical
devices and products, and increase the penalties for animal research facilities that violate this part
of the act. This language was the House farm bill (H.R. 2419) but was deleted by conferees.
Interest in the proposal was stimulated at least in part by a sales demonstration in an Ohio
medical facility, where a dog reportedly was given a brain aneurysm, repeatedly subjected to the
medical device, and later put down. Proponents believe the incident highlighted an inhumane
practice done for profit, not science or medicine. Opponents argue that the facility had not
approved the demonstration and acted swiftly to address it, and that most research facilities even
go beyond federal welfare requirements to ensure that research animals do not experience pain
and suffering.
Haley’s Act
This bill (H.R. 1947) would have amended the AWA to make it unlawful for animal exhibitors
and dealers (but not accredited zoos) to allow direct contact between the public and big cats such
as lions and tigers. The bill, which also would have increased penalties for AWA violations, was
named for a teenager killed by a grown Siberian tiger in 2005 while having her picture taken with
it at an APHIS-licensed facility. Opponents argue that the measure is unnecessary because federal
regulations already ban such contacts with older cats (the facility presumably was out of
compliance) and because zoos will gain a monopoly in exhibiting younger cats.
Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act
In May 2010, USDA’s Office of Inspector General released a scathing report that excoriated
APHIS for its lax enforcement of the AWA with respect to large dog-breeding operations (“puppy
mills”).11 The report documented that over half of the kennels cited for violations between 2006
and 2008 continued to break the law. Among other shortcomings, APHIS inspectors failed to
confiscate dogs at kennels that were violating the AWA, reduced punishments arbitrarily,
improperly documented inspections and thereby caused nearly half of all administrative hearings
involving problem breeders to be compromised because of lack of evidence. The report noted the
loophole in the AWA that exempts from APHIS’s inspection and licensing requirements breeders
who sell dogs over the Internet or through newspaper advertisements.12
The Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (the PUPS Act, H.R. 6949/S. 3519) was
introduced in the 110th Congress, reintroduced in the 111th Congress as H.R. 5434/S. 3424. It has
also been reintroduced in the 112th Congress as H.R. 835 by Representative Gerlach, and referred
11 USDA, Office of Inspector General, APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspections of Problematic Dealers. Audit
Report 33002-4-SF, May 10, 2010. Report can be accessed at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf.
12 APHIS has approximately 100 inspectors responsible for over 4,600 licensed dog-breeders.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
to the House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. The bill would amend the AWA to
bring large dog-breeding operations that sell directly to the public under AWA inspection and
licensing.
The proposed legislation would require those who breed dogs to obtain an AWA license from
USDA if they raise more than 50 dogs in a 12-month period and sold directly to the public. The
bill also would set some minimum daily exercise requirements for dogs held by the dealers.
Supporters of the bills contend that the Internet and other relatively recent marketing techniques
have enabled importers and large commercial breeders, whom they call “puppy mills,” to sell
their animals directly to the public while evading the AWA licensing and humane handling
requirements, even though they are selling large numbers of animals. (Wholesale breeders are
already covered by the AWA.) Opponents counter that the measures would strain USDA resources
and newly subject thousands of relatively small in-home and hobby breeders, as well as rescue
organizations, to burdensome licensing and regulatory requirements that were designed for large
commercial businesses.
The Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act is similar in intent to measures offered in the 109th
Congress, the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (“PAWS”; H.R. 2669; S. 1139). “PAWS” would have
required commercial dog and cat breeders to obtain AWA licenses if they sold more than six
litters or more than 25 dogs or cats directly to the public each year, among other things.
Sense of Congress to Ban Shelter Gas Chambers
H.Res. 736 was introduced in the 112th Congress by Representative James Moran in July 2012.
The resolution expresses opposition to and disapproval of the use of gases to euthanize shelter
animals (e.g. carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, argon). The resolution
also expresses support for state laws that require euthanasia of animals by injection using sodium
pentobarbital. In comparison to using gas chambers, euthanasia of shelter animals by injection is
considered more reliable and more humane by the American Humane Association, the American
Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the Association of
Shelter Veterinarians, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the
Humane Society of the United States. In August, H.Res. 736 was referred to the House
Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011
The United States is the only developed country that continues large-scale confinement of
chimpanzees in federal laboratories. The European Union, Japan, and New Zealand have banned
or strictly limited their use. Approximately nine federal laboratories own an estimated total of 500
great apes, mostly chimpanzees, used as subjects in biomedical research. Many of the
chimpanzees, however, are no longer actually used in medical research, but simply warehoused at
government laboratories.13 As laboratory techniques have advanced (e.g., computer modeling,
13 The federal government began breeding chimpanzees in the 1960s for the space program. In the mid-1980s, the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) stepped up its chimpanzee breeding program under the assumption that
chimpanzees—humans’ closest primate cousin—would be ideal laboratory models for AIDS. It turned out that apes
were not as useful a model as originally believed. NIH later imposed a moratorium on its chimpanzee breeding
program and began looking for solutions to deal with its “surplus.” Although NIH considered euthanizing the
chimpanzees, the agency abandoned the idea in favor of sending them to sanctuaries.
Congressional Research Service
9
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Legislation
DNA analysis, in vitro study) and animal research ethics have evolved, questions have arisen
about the continued use of great apes as research subjects, and about the ethics and cost of
housing chimpanzees.
In 2000, the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance, and Protection Act (P.L. 106-551,
the CHIMP Act) was enacted. The act created a federally funded national sanctuary system for
chimpanzees retired from research and prohibited killing them as a matter of convenience to
laboratories. Approximately 152 chimpanzees have been retired to the federally funded national
chimpanzee sanctuary system. Approximately 500 more from U.S. research, including military,
air and space research, were placed in private sanctuaries in North America. Under the CHIMP
Act, however, the laboratories had complete discretion as to when a chimpanzee was considered
for retirement, and under certain circumstances a retired chimpanzee could be returned to
research.14
The Great Ape Protection Act was introduced in the 111th Congress (H.R. 1326/S. 3694). After
referral, no further action was taken on the bill. A new great ape protection bill—the Great Ape
Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011, (H.R. 1513/S. 810)—was introduced in the 112th
Congress. As was the case with the Great Ape Protection Act, the new bill would prohibit
invasive research on great apes (e.g., chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon), prohibit
the use of federal funds for great ape research in and outside the United States, and permanently
retire all great apes owned by the federal government. The new bill would also establish a great
ape sanctuary system fund in the U.S. Treasury to provide funding for the animals’ retirement.
The previous Great Ape Protection bill had similar provisions, but did not create the federal
funding system to support the retirement of great apes owned by the federal government. The bill
was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. In the Senate, the bill was ordered to be reported out of the
Committee on Environment and Public Works with an amendment favorably.
Author Contact Information
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Development
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by Geoffrey S. Becker, Specialist in Agricultural Policy.
14 In 2007, the Chimp Haven Is Home Act amendment was enacted. The amendment prohibited returning chimpanzees
to research once they were retired into federal sanctuary.
Congressional Research Service
10