The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

July 14, 2022 – February 8, 2023 R47179

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and
February 8, 2023
Selected Issues
Eleni G. Bickell
In 1966, Congress passed legislation that later became known as the Animal Welfare Act (P.L.
Analyst in Agricultural
89-544) with goals of preventing the theft and sale of pets to research laboratories and regulating
Policy
the humane care and handling of dogs, cats, and other laboratory animals. The Animal Welfare

Act as amended (AWA, 7 U.S.C. §§2131-2156) is the central federal statute governing the
humane care and handling of mammals and certain other animals. Since its enactment, Congress

has amended the law to expand the types of animals it covers and activities it regulates and to
clarify various provisions. These amendments have strengthened enforcement, expanded coverage to more animals and
activities, and curtailed cruel practices (e.g., animal fighting), among other things.
The AWA covers any live or dead warm-blooded animal, as defined, determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to be used for research, exhibition, or as a pet. In addition, the AWA addresses animal fighting and the importation
of certain dogs into the United States. The AWA’s statutory definition of animal 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. The act applies to
animal dealers (e.g., pet breeders, medical research suppliers), exhibitors (e.g., zoos, circuses), research facilities (e.g., private
and federal laboratories that use animals in research), and transporters (e.g., airlines, railroads, truckers). Covered entities
must meet certain standards described in law and regulation and keep certain records. The AWA establishes penalties for
noncompliance.
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) administers the AWA. In carrying out this responsibility,
APHIS promulgates and updates AWA regulations; licenses and registers entities subject to the AWA; inspects the premises
of licensed and registered entities; investigates potential violations; and enforces AWA provisions.
Animal welfare issues generate significant attention from stakeholder groups. For example, animal welfare advocates have
called on Congress to define specific standards for animal care within AWA legislation, increase AWA enforcement, and
expand AWA coverage to even more covered animals, entities, and activities. Other stakeholders, including entities regulated
under the AWA, have called on Congress to streamline USDA’s AWA oversight and enforcement. Additional issues debated
in recent years include the role and care of research animals and federal oversight of pet breeding operations, circuses, and
animal shelters.
Congressional Research Service

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

he Animal Welfare Act as amended (AWA, 7 U.S.C. §§2131-2156) addresses the humane
treatment of animals intended for research, bred for commercial sale, exhibited to the
Tpublic, or commercially transported. Although Congress also addresses animal welfare
issues through other legislation, the AWA remains the central federal statute governing the
humane care and handling of mammals, including marine mammals, and certain other animals.1
The law provides a broad set of statutory protections for covered animals. For example,
businesses and other entities dealing with covered animals must be licensed or registered and
adhere to minimum standards of care. Certain animals—such as horses and farm animals and
birds, rats, and mice bred for research—are excluded from the law.
Congress first passed the law that later became the AWA (P.L. 89-544) in 1966, following years of
lobbying by animal welfare organizations and two investigative articles in the popular press that
generated intense public response. One of the articles documented the abduction of a family dog
that later was found to have been euthanized in a medical research facility, and the other
documented the abuse of dogs—some of which had been family pets—by dealers selling animals
to medical research laboratories.2 Over the decades, Congress has amended the original law many
times, expanding its scope and clarifying various provisions.
The House and Senate agriculture committees exercise primary legislative jurisdiction over the
AWA and its amendments. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) administers the AWA. In carrying out these responsibilities,
APHIS
 promulgates and updates AWA regulations;
 licenses and registers entities subject to the AWA;
 conducts inspections of licensed and registered entities;
 investigates potential violations; and
 enforces AWA provisions.
This report provides an overview of key AWA provisions and regulations. It also provides issues
for congressional consideration. For a history of the AWA and its amendments, see CRS Report
R47180, Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act: In Brief, by Genevieve K. Croft.3

1 Other legislation addressing domesticated and research animals include the Horse Protection Act as amended (15
U.S.C. §§1821-1831) and the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 U.S.C. §§201 et seq.; see, for example, 42
U.S.C. §289d). Numerous other federal laws seek to protect other classes of animals, often those from the wild,
including the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Lacey Act as amended, and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
Burros Act. These and other laws are described in CRS Report R46672, Federal Statutes Protecting Domesticated and
Captive Animals, by Erin H. Ward.
2 These articles are Stan Wayman, “Concentration Camps for Dogs,” Life Magazine, vol. 60, no. 5, February 3, 1966,
pp. 22-29; and Coles Phinizy, “The Lost Pets that Stray to the Labs,” Sports Illustrated, November 29, 1965. For more
information, see Christine Stevens, “Laboratory Animal Welfare,” in Animals and Their Legal Rights, 1990, Animal
Welfare Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 66-111. According to Stevens, “More mail was received by Life on this article
than on any other in the history of the magazine, and Congress received more mail on the pending bills than on civil
rights or Vietnam” (p. 74). More generally, Animals and Their Legal Rights provides a history of animal welfare
legislation through 1990.
3 Congressional offices may contact the current author at ebickell@crs.loc.gov or 7-9054.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

Key AWA Provisions and Regulations
The AWA provides a broad set of statutory protections for covered animals held, transported, and
sold by covered businesses, and used in covered activities (covered animals, businesses, and
activities are those regulated by AWA provisions). APHIS’s Animal Care unit develops, updates,
and enforces AWA regulations (9 C.F.R. Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Parts 1-4).4 The scope,
applicability, and key provisions of the AWA and its regulations are discussed below.
Scope of Federal Jurisdiction
The AWA focuses on aspects of animal welfare that meet federal interests. Under the AWA,
covered animals, businesses, and activities generally have a connection to or impact on interstate
or foreign commerce.5 According to AWA’s congressional statement of policy (7 U.S.C. §2131),
Animals and activities which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or
foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that
regulation of animals and activities as provided in this chapter is necessary to prevent and
eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to effectively regulate such commerce.
Many aspects of animal welfare do not meet these criteria and are addressed through state and
local laws rather than through the AWA or other federal statutes.6 For example, every state has its
own animal cruelty laws, and state and local jurisdictions may set standards and enact codified
provisions for potential violations. The state statutes as of 2021 cover farm animals, animals that
are used for recreational hunting and fishing, animal shelters, retail pet stores, and the treatment
of pets by their owners.7 A recent USDA report on state policies for farm animal welfare indicates
that since 2002, 14 U.S. states have enacted legislation concerning livestock and poultry
production practices that impact farm animal welfare.8 The most common state policies relate to
allowing more animal movement in the pork and egg industries; restricting or banning the use of
gestation and veal crates and hen and battery cages; or restricting the retail sales of products that
come from animals produced in confinement.9

4 The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) publishes a compilation of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
and associated regulations, Animal Welfare Act and its Regulations, also known as the “Blue Book.” For the current
version of this document, see APHIS, “Animal Welfare Act,” at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
animalwelfare/awa/ct_awa_program_information. APHIS Animal Care has an annual budget of
approximately $41.6 million in FY2023. Of these funds, $37.5 million is for AWA implementation and $4 million is
for the Horse Protection Act implementation. For details, see Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2023 (P.L. 117-328
), Division A, 756§.
5 The AWA as amended defines commerce as including “trade, traffic, transportation, or other commerce” (7 U.S.C.
§2132(c)).
6 The AWA expressly provides that it does not prevent state and local governments from promulgating animal welfare
standards in addition to the federal AWA standards (7 U.S.C. §2143(a)(8)).
7 For a state-by-state listing of animal cruelty laws, see National Agricultural Law Center, “States’ Animal Cruelty
Laws,” at https://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-compilations/animal-cruelty.
8 Danielle J. Ufer, State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry
Industries: An Overview, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, EIB-245, December 2022.
9 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

2

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

Covered Animals and Animal Uses
The AWA applies to any live or dead warm-blooded animal, as defined, including dogs, cats,
nonhuman primates (e.g., lemurs, monkeys, apes), guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits determined
by USDA to be used for research, exhibition, or as a pet. Covered animals include warm-blooded
zoo animals (e.g., tigers, red pandas, gorillas) and captive marine mammals (e.g., orcas, narwhals,
polar bears). The AWA also covers birds not used for research, but the regulatory standards are
not yet published for these birds. USDA expects to publish a final rule in 2023 establishing
regulatory standards to cover birds not used in research.10 The AWA’s statutory definition of
animal 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.11 Cold-blooded vertebrate animals (i.e.,
fish, reptiles, and amphibians) and invertebrate animals (e.g., crustaceans) are not covered under
the AWA.
The original 1966 law focused on six types of live animals used for research: dogs, cats,
nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits. Amendments in 1970 expanded covered
animals to include dead animals. Without this amendment, conceivably an animal could be killed
prior to transport (e.g., to a research facility) to avoid AWA regulation. The 1970 amendments
also revised the definition of animal to include all warm-blooded animals—as determined by
USDA—used in research, for exhibition, or as pets, excluding farm animals and certain research
animals. Following that definition change, USDA promulgated regulations that administratively
excluded mice, rats, and birds.12 Animal welfare advocates legally challenged this exclusion, with
mixed results.13 In 2002, an amendment to the AWA (P.L. 107-171, §10301) codified USDA’s
administrative exclusion by changing the statutory definition of animal to exclude birds, rats, and
mice bred for research.14
Animal Fighting
In addition to regulations covering animals used for research, exhibition, or as pets, the AWA
prohibits animal fighting (e.g., dogfighting, cockfighting; 7 U.S.C. §2156). The scope and
penalties for animal fighting have changed in the years since the Animal Welfare Act
Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-279) first added animal fighting provisions to the AWA. Animal

10 In 2020, following a successful lawsuit challenging USDA’s failure to develop AWA regulations for birds not used
in research, APHIS initiated the process of developing such regulations. See Animal Welfare Institute, “Birds Poised to
Finally Get Animal Welfare Act Protections,” AWI Quarterly, Winter 2020. APHIS issued a proposed rule in February
2022: USDA APHIS, “Standards for Birds not Bred for Use in Research under the Animal Welfare Act,” 87 Federal
Register 9880, February 22, 2022, and announced that the final rule will be published around February 2023,
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/proposed-awa-standards-for-birds/aphis-2020-0068
11 For example, rabbits raised for pets or for use in research are covered under the AWA, but rabbits raised for food or
fiber are not covered.
12 These animals, and all vertebrate animals used for certain federally funded research, are covered under the Public
Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, at National Institutes of Health (NIH),
Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, “PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals,” revised in 2015,
at https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/phs-policy.htm. See also CRS In Focus IF12002, Animal Use in Federal
Biomedical Research: A Policy Overview.
13 For additional details, see Henry Cohen, “The Animal Welfare Act,” Michigan State University Animal Legal and
Historical Center, 2006, at https://www.animallaw.info/article/animal-welfare-act (hereinafter, Cohen 2006).
14 The 2002 farm bill also required the National Research Council (NRC) to issue a report to Congress on the
implications of including rats, mice, and birds as animals covered by the AWA. NRC, part of the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), did not prepare this report, potentially because it did not receive
federal funding to conduct the report. See Cohen 2006, footnote 86.
Congressional Research Service

3

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

fighting is now illegal in all U.S. states and territories, and certain violations carry felony
penalties. Animal fighting sponsors, exhibitors, and spectators—as well as those who cause
individuals under the age of 16 to attend or who are involved in procuring sharp instruments for
use in animal fights—are in violation of this provision and are subject to criminal penalties.
Importing Dogs for Resale
The AWA establishes specific requirements for the importation of dogs intended for resale in the
United States (7 U.S.C. §2148), except for dogs intended for research or veterinary treatment.
Dogs imported for resale must be vaccinated and healthy. They also must be at least six months
old, except in the case of importation from certain countries into Hawaii.
Covered Entities
AWA-covered entities include animal dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, and carriers and
intermediate handlers (i.e., transporters; see text box for information on covered entities). The
AWA requires dealers and exhibitors to have a license to operate, and research facilities, carriers,
and intermediate handlers require registration.15 Both licensees and registrants must adhere to the
same standards for animal handling, care, treatment, and transportation. As of December 2022,
APHIS licensed or registered 13,190 entities.16
To comply with AWA licensing requirements, applicants must pass an APHIS pre-license
inspection of the facility where animals are to be held. Applicants must pay a licensing fee, and—
since 2020, licenses are valid for three years.17 USDA provides three types of AWA licenses: (1)
Class A licenses are for dealers that only sell animals they breed and raise themselves; (2) Class B
licenses are for all other dealers; and (3) Class C licenses are for exhibitors. A facility that loses
its license cannot continue its regulated activity.
To comply with AWA registration requirements, applicants must register with APHIS and may
request a voluntary pre-registration inspection. There is no registration fee. Since 2021,
registration for research facilities is of indefinite duration.18 Transporters and exhibitors that are
not required to be licensed must register with APHIS and renew their registration every three
years.

15 The AWA identifies entities with a licensing requirement at 7 U.S.C. §2133 and those with a registration requirement
at 7 U.S.C. §2136.
16 APHIS maintains a public database of AWA licensees and registrants, accessible at APHIS, “Animal Care Public
Search Tool,” at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/List-of-Active-Licensees-and-
Registrants.xlsx.
17 Prior to 2020, AWA licenses were valid for one year, renewable. Effective November 9, 2020, APHIS updated the
regulations to issue three-year licenses; licensees may apply for a new license at the end of the license’s term. USDA
APHIS, “Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to Requirements for Dogs,” 85 Federal Register
28772, May 13, 2020.
18 APHIS updated 9 C.F.R. §2.30 to clarify the duration of registration in APHIS, “AWA Research Facility
Registration Updates, Reviews, and Reports,” 86 Federal Register 66919, November 24, 2021. APHIS provides
information about this and additional changes in this final rule at APHIS, “FAQs: AWA Research Facility Registration
Updates, Reviews, and Reports,” updated January 12, 2022, at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
animalwelfare/awa/new-research-rule/faqs
Congressional Research Service

4

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

Covered Entities Requiring AWA Licensing and Registration
Licensing (9 C.F.R. §§2.1-2.13)
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 be licensed by APHIS. Exemptions include retail pet
stores, those who sell pets directly to pet owners, hobby breeders, animal shelters, and boarding kennels.

Class A licensees are breeders who deal only with animals they breed and raise.

Class B licensees are all other dealers.
Exhibitors must also be licensed by APHIS. Exemptions include agricultural shows and fairs, horse shows, rodeos,
pet shows, game preserves, hunting events, and private col ectors who do not exhibit.

Class C licensees include zoos, marine mammal shows, circuses, carnivals, and promotional and educational
exhibits.
Registration (9 C.F.R. §§2.25-2.38)
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. Elementary and secondary
schools are exempt, and AWA regulations do not require agricultural research institutions to register. Federal
research facilities are not required to register. Registration for research facilities does not require renewal.
Carriers and intermediate handlers (i.e., 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. AWA transporter registration must be renewed every three years.
Exhibitors not required to be licensed under 7 U.S.C. §2133 must be registered (7 U.S.C. §2136). See
“exhibitors,” above, for examples of exhibitors that require registration.
Retail Pet Store Exemption
Retail pet stores—which in other respects would be considered animal dealers—are exempt from
AWA licensing and inspection requirements.19 This exemption is in place largely because at a
retail pet store, buyers have the opportunity to examine potential pets before purchasing them.20
Prior to 2013, a growing number of internet sales that did not provide this opportunity occurred
under the retail pet store exemption. This raised concerns about the humane treatment of those
animals. A 2010 USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report found that internet dealers
should not be categorized as retail pet stores, and it recommended that USDA seek a legislative
change to exclude these dealers from the retail pet store definition.21 In 2013, APHIS issued new
regulations that defined a retail pet store as a place where a buyer could personally observe the
animal prior to purchase.22 Retail outlets not meeting this criterion require a dealer’s licensing and
inspection. Retail pet stores selling animals in face-to-face transactions remain exempt.
AWA Standards
The AWA requires USDA to develop standards for the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of covered animals by licensees and registrants. APHIS develops and updates
standards that specify requirements for animal handling, shelter, feeding, watering, sanitation,

19 “Retail pet stores” are explicitly excluded from the definitions of dealers and exhibitors at 7 U.S.C. §2132.
20 See APHIS, “Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions,” 78 Federal Register 57227, September
18, 2013.
21 USDA OIG, APHIS Animal Care Program Inspections of Problematic Dealers, Audit Report 33002-4-SF, May
2010.
22 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

5

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

ventilation, veterinary care, and transportation.23 These published standards (9 C.F.R. Part 3) are
specific to the needs of various types of covered animals:
 Subpart A—dogs and cats,
 Subpart B—guinea pigs and hamsters,
 Subpart C—rabbits,
 Subpart D—nonhuman primates,
 Subpart E—marine mammals, and
 Subpart F—other covered animals.
In an example, AWA standards for marine mammals (Subpart E) include facilities and operating
standards that address such concerns as construction, lighting, drainage, and waste facilities;
ambient temperature and ventilation; and space requirements for various specified classes of
marine mammal. Animal health and husbandry standards address water quality, sanitation, social
conditions, veterinary care, and other issues specific to marine mammals. Transportation
standards address such issues as when carriers can accept marine mammals for shipment, and
what documents are required; minimum standards for primary enclosures for transportation; and
proper handling of marine mammals. Standards for the other types of covered animals address
their specific needs across general categories of standards.
Research Facility Requirements
The AWA includes additional requirements for research facilities, such as establishing an internal
oversight body and overseeing potentially painful experiments.24 Each research facility must
establish an Animal Care Committee to assess the facility’s animal care, use, and research
practices. For nonfederal facilities, this committee is required to report any AWA violations to
USDA. For federal facilities, this committee must report AWA violations to the head of the
federal agency. The act also requires that facilities and researchers take steps to minimize pain
and distress in research animals; consider alternatives to research procedures likely to produce
pain or distress; plan potentially painful or distressful practices in consultation with a
veterinarian; and curtail an animal’s use to one major operative experiment unless scientifically
necessary (7 U.S.C. §2143(a)(3)).
Other federal agencies also administer laws and policies addressing animal welfare in research
conducted with federal funds.25 For example, the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane
Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy) requires an oversight committee for animal
research. The PHS Policy applies to research funded by Public Health Service agencies (e.g., the
National Institutes of Health [NIH], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) as well as other
agencies (e.g., National Science Foundation, Department of Veterans Affairs) through interagency
agreements. Institutions often have one Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)
to meet both requirements.
Private entities also can play a role in the animal welfare practices of research facilities subject to
the AWA. Some research facilities seek voluntary accreditation from the Association for
Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC), a private

23 AWA standards are found at 9 C.F.R. §§3.1-3.142.
24 Many of these provisions are included at 7 U.S.C. §2143.
25 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF12002, Animal Use in Federal Biomedical Research: A Policy Overview.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 9 The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

nonprofit entity that promotes the humane treatment of research animals. According to AAALAC,
participants in its voluntary accreditation program demonstrate that they meet the minimum legal
standards and “are also going the extra step to achieve excellence in animal care and use.”26
AAALAC accreditation builds on three primary animal welfare standards: (1) the Guide for the
Care and Use of Laboratory Animals; (2) the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals
in Research and Teaching; and (3) the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate
Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes.27 More than 980 animal care and
use programs in 44 countries have earned AAALAC International accreditation.28
Recordkeeping Requirements
The AWA requires all covered entities to keep certain records for covered animals (7 U.S.C.
§2140). In many cases, the AWA and its regulations specify recordkeeping requirements for dogs
and cats apart from other covered animals.
 For dealers and exhibitors, the AWA requires recordkeeping for any animal as
prescribed by USDA. AWA regulations identify specific requirements for dogs
and cats and separate requirements for other animals (9 C.F.R. §§2.75-2.76).
 For research facilities, the AWA requires, and the regulations identify, specific
recordkeeping only for live dogs and cats. The AWA regulations require that
these records include information such as name, address, and AWA registration
number of the seller (as applicable); sex, approximate age, and general
description of the animal; and date of acquisition or disposal (9 C.F.R. §2.35).
The AWA regulations also require recordkeeping for each research facility’s
IACUC (see “Research Facility Requirements”).
 For carriers and intermediate handlers, the AWA requires such recordkeeping
as USDA may prescribe. AWA regulations include specific recordkeeping
requirements for live dogs, cats, and nonhuman primates, as well as all live
animals accepted for shipment on a cash on delivery, or similar, basis (9 C.F.R.
§2.77).
Oversight and Enforcement
APHIS Animal Care is responsible for AWA oversight and enforcement. Inspections are the
primary enforcement tool, and the AWA provides for financial and other penalties when certain
criteria are met. In 2021, APHIS Animal Care oversaw 11,785 licensees and registrants that were
responsible for more than 1.4 million AWA-covered animals.29

26 For more information, see AAALAC, “About,” at https://www.aaalac.org/about/what-is-aaalac.
27 National Research Council, Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Washington, DC: National
Academies Press, 2011); American Dairy Science Association, American Society of Animal Science, and Poultry
Science Association, Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching, 4th Edition, 2020;
and Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and
Other Scientific Purposes, ETS 123, 1986.
28 For more information, see AAALAC, “Accreditation Program,” at https://www.aaalac.org/accreditation-program/
faqs/#F7FAQ #7.
29 APHIS, 2021 Impact Report, April 2022, at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/aphis_general/2021-impact-
report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 13 The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

As of January 2023, Animal Care employed 98 animal welfare operations inspectors, consisting
of 65 veterinary medical officers and 33 animal care inspectors. The number of Animal Care unit
inspectors has been decreasing, from 122 in 2021, 109 in 2022, to 98 inspectors in January
2023.30
Inspections
APHIS Animal Care conducts both scheduled and unannounced compliance inspections. In 2021,
with 11,785 licensees and registrants, it conducted 7,670 AWA inspections; of these, 1,277 were
unannounced research facility inspections.31 When violations are identified, APHIS conducts
follow-up inspections until all identified violations are resolved.32
Scheduled Inspections
APHIS Animal Care conducts scheduled inspections of facilities seeking AWA licenses and
registrations. A facility must pass a pre-license inspection before it is licensed. A facility seeking
registration may request a voluntary pre-registration inspection. If the facility fails the pre-
inspection, it may request up to two reinspections to demonstrate compliance with AWA
regulations.
Unannounced Inspections
APHIS Animal Care conducts unannounced inspections of registered and licensed facilities to
ensure ongoing compliance with AWA regulations. The AWA requires APHIS to inspect research
facilities at least annually (7 U.S.C. §2146).33 A 2022 lawsuit filed by the Harvard Law School
Animal Law & Policy Clinic against USDA alleges that APHIS does not meet this requirement
(see also “AWA Enforcement”).34 APHIS bases inspection frequency for other AWA-regulated
facilities on their risk of animal welfare concerns.35 Under this risk-based inspection system,
APHIS inspects low-risk facilities every few years or when it receives a complaint; moderate-risk
facilities once a year; and high-risk facilities as often as four times a year. APHIS asserts it
determines risk based on past compliance history and other criteria. In addition to inspecting
licensed and registered facilities, APHIS inspectors conduct searches to identify unlicensed or
unregistered facilities.
Penalties
Depending on the circumstances, failure to correct deficiencies identified during inspections can
result in warnings, animal confiscation, fines, cease-and-desist orders, license suspension, and
license revocation (7 U.S.C. §2149). Licensees and registrants can appeal USDA’s final orders to
the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals. Dealers, exhibitors, and auction-sale operators may be

30 APHIS communication with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on January 29, 2023.
31 APHIS, 2021 Impact Report, April 2022.
32 For more information on APHIS inspections, see APHIS, Animal Welfare Inspection Guide, revised December 2022,
at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Animal-Care-Inspection-Guide.pdf.
33 The AWA does not require federal research institutions to register with APHIS, and they are not required to undergo
AWA inspections.
34 Dan Robitzski, “Lawsuit Alleges USDA Secretly Relaxed Animal Welfare Inspections,” The Scientist, April 7, 2022.
35 APHIS, “Risk Based Inspection System,” at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/SA_AWA/
CT_AWA_Risk_Based_Inspection_System.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 4 The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

subject to criminal penalties for knowing violations of the AWA. In 2022, APHIS took civil or
administrative action against violators: it opened 254 cases, issued 205 official warnings, and
suspended the licenses of three facilities for 21 days.36
Public Database
Prior to 2017, USDA voluntarily provided public access to a searchable database containing AWA
records, including inspection reports and enforcement actions. In February 2017, USDA ended
public access to this database.37 Stakeholders criticized a lack of transparency in the decision to
end public access and expressed concerns that limiting public access to this information would
prevent public awareness of AWA violators and allow animal abuse to occur without public
review.38 The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94) amended the U.S.
Code (7 U.S.C. §2146a) to require APHIS to host a publicly searchable database of AWA
inspection reports, enforcement records, and final research facility annual reports. APHIS
launched the database in September 2020.39
Issues for Congress
Animal welfare issues have generated significant attention from stakeholder groups. As
mentioned, the AWA originated in part due to overwhelming public interest in the ethical sourcing
and humane treatment of animals intended for biomedical research.40 Congress may choose to
consider the following selected issues.
AWA Standards
The AWA calls on USDA to promulgate standards for the humane care, treatment, and
transportation of covered animals. Some observers have criticized USDA’s regulatory standards
as permissive and outdated.41 For example, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
argues that the long-standing minimum standards for dogs and cats established in AWA
regulations permit conditions that today’s public would consider inhumane, such as wire flooring
in the animals’ primary enclosures, extreme temperature protection that applies only if the
extreme temperature persists for more than four hours, and no socialization and exercise
requirement.42 If Congress chooses to address AWA standards, it could do so by directing USDA

36 This information is available at APHIS, “Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Actions,” at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/actions/.
37 For more information, see Karin Brulliard, “USDA Abruptly Purges Animal Welfare Information from its Website,”
Washington Post, February 2, 2017; and Meredith Wadman, “Updated: USDA Responds to Outcry over Removal of
Animal Welfare Documents, Lawsuit Threats,” Science Insider, February 7, 2017.
38 Ibid.
39 This information is available at APHIS, “USDA Animal Care Public Search Tool,” at https://aphis-efile.force.com/
PublicSearchTool/s.
40 See footnote 2.
41 See, for example, HSUS, Puppy Mills and the Animal Welfare Act, 2020, at https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/
default/files/docs/puppy-mills-awa-booklet-lores_0.pdf; ASPCA, “USDA Enforcement of Animal Welfare Act
Continues to Plummet,” March 11, 2020; and PETA, “U.S. Department of Agriculture,” at https://www.peta.org/issues/
animals-used-for-experimentation/us-government-animal-testing-programs/usda.
42 Ibid.; see also Latham and Watkins, LLP, HSUS et al. “Petition to the United States Department of Agriculture for
Rulemaking Under the Animal Welfare Act to Increase Minimum Standards at Commercial Breeding Facilities,”
September 21, 2015, at https://blog.humanesociety.org/2015/09/hsus-usda-puppy-mills-petition.html.
Congressional Research Service

9

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

to update or strengthen existing AWA standards for all covered animals, or certain types of
covered animals, through regulation. For example, Congress could call on USDA to update AWA
standards in appropriations report language for APHIS. Alternatively, Congress could pass
legislation that codifies specific standards for different types of covered animals. For example,
the Puppy Protection Act (H.R. 2840/S. 1385)—introduced in the 117th Congress—would have
amended the AWA to specify certain standards for dogs that meet or exceed those standards
specified in AWA regulations.
AWA Enforcement
Stakeholders including HSUS, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have asserted that AWA
enforcement is insufficient.43 Some Members of Congress also have expressed similar concerns.
For example, the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022
(P.L. 117-103) includes the following:
Committees are concerned about the ongoing mismanagement of APHIS’s Animal Care
program. News reports have repeatedly documented long and inexplicable delays by
APHIS in acting against blatant violations of the Animal Welfare Act that resulted in the
illness and death of many animals under APHIS’s jurisdiction.44
Several Members of Congress have written letters to APHIS calling for increased oversight and
enforcement for licensees and registrants.45 Should Congress choose to address AWA
enforcement, it could do so through oversight, appropriations, or legislation.
Congress could increase appropriations for APHIS Animal Care to allow APHIS to hire more
staff to conduct AWA inspections and engage in AWA enforcement. In 2021, 122 APHIS animal
welfare inspectors oversaw nearly 12,000 AWA licensees and registrants. The number of
inspections reported by USDA was 7,670.46 This means that no more than 65% of facilities were
inspected that year.
Congress appropriated about $41.6 million for FY2023 for APHIS Animal Welfare and Horse
Protection activities.47 The appropriations amount for FY2022 was around $35.3 million.48
Legislation introduced in the 117th Congress—including H.R. 3277, the Animal Welfare
Enforcement Improvement Act, and H.R. 6100—would have addressed animal welfare
enforcement. H.R. 3277 would have supported increased AWA enforcement via various means.
Among these, it would have (1) required dealers and exhibitors to renew their licenses annually
(as opposed to every three years), with new conditions regarding the allowable number, type, and
recency of past animal welfare violations; (2) prohibited dealers and exhibitors who lose their
licenses from obtaining new licenses under other business names or via family members or
business partners; and (3) allowed for individual citizens to initiate civil lawsuits against
individuals or entities who they allege are violating the AWA. H.R. 6100 would have (1) required

43 For stakeholder views, see, for example, HSUS, Puppy Mills and the Animal Welfare Act, 2020, at
https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/puppy-mills-awa-booklet-lores_0.pdf.
44 Explanatory statement, Congressional Record, vol. 168, no. 42 (March 9, 2022), p. 1712.
45 See, for example, Sen. Tim Kaine, “Warner & Kaine Demand Immediate Action in Light of “Continued, Horrific
Mistreatment” of Dogs and Puppies at Va. Facility,” press release, March 31, 2022; and Rep. Mike Quigley, “Quigley
Leads Letter to USDA on USDA Animal Welfare Enforcement,” press release, April 27, 2020.
46 APHIS, 2021 Impact Report, April 2022.
47 Explanatory statement, Congressional Record, Vol. 168, no. 198 (December 20, 2022), p. S7824.
48 For details, see Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2022 (P.L. 117-103), Division A—Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service

10

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

annual inspections of all exhibitors’ and dealers’ premises, in addition to the existing requirement
of annual inspections of research facilities; (2) required USDA to promulgate regulations for
USDA’s prompt confiscation or humane destruction of animals found to be suffering harm due to
AWA violations; and (3) specified conditions and processes for revoking an AWA license,
appeals, fines, and imprisonment for AWA violations. The 118th Congress might consider similar
legislation.
Dealers: Dog Breeders
Dog breeders have been the subject of USDA and congressional oversight for years. A 2010
USDA OIG report audited APHIS Animal Care’s investigations of large-scale dog dealers (i.e.,
breeders and brokers) that failed to provide humane treatment for animals under their care.49 The
audit determined that APHIS Animal Care’s enforcement process was ineffective against dealers
with repeated violations; APHIS misused its guidelines to lower penalties for AWA violators; and
some large breeders circumvented the AWA by selling animals over the internet. APHIS
concurred with the OIG’s findings and implemented 13 of the 14 recommendations, including
amending the definition of retail pet store to exclude sales that are not face-to-face transactions.50
In a 2021 follow-up report, USDA OIG identified concerns and made three recommendations for
APHIS Animal Care:
1. resolve issues with data consistency and security in its Animal Care database;
2. develop and implement guidance, policies, and procedures to improve its
responses to animal welfare complaints and its documentation of agency
responses to complaints; and
3. improve the training of AWA inspectors.51
Some Members of Congress also have questioned APHIS’s oversight of dog breeding facilities.
In March 2022, two Senators wrote to APHIS requesting follow-up information about its
enforcement policies and actions in response to repeated AWA violations at a particular dog
breeding facility.52 The Senators charged that APHIS did not use available enforcement tools,
including fines, license suspension, and animal confiscation, to correct “continued, horrific
mistreatment” of animals at a licensed breeding facility. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a
civil complaint against the operator of the facility for AWA violations, and in June 2022, the
facility announced it would close.53
If Congress chooses to address AWA compliance of dog breeders, Congress could do so through
hearings or new legislation. For example, in April 2022, the State of Virginia enacted legislation

49 USDA OIG, APHIS Animal Care Program Inspections of Problematic Dealers, Audit Report 33002-4-SF, May
2010.
50 The OIG audit found that more than 80% of sampled breeders were not licensed under AWA because they sold
animals over the internet and claimed the “retail pet store” exemption. Such “puppy mill breeders” were not being
monitored or inspected to ensure the health and humane treatment of the animals. USDA partially agreed with the audit
recommendation to “Include instructions in ‘Determining Penalties Under the Animal Welfare Act’ to count each
animal as a separate violation in cases involving animal deaths and unlicensed wholesale activities.” USDA determined
that this recommendation may be impractical to implement for unlicensed wholesale activities.
51 USDA OIG, Animal Care Program Oversight of Dog Breeders, June 2021, Audit Report 33601-0002-31.
52 Sen. Tim Kaine, “Warner & Kaine Demand Immediate Action in Light of “Continued, Horrific Mistreatment” of
Dogs and Puppies at Va. Facility,” press release, March 31, 2022.
53 Science News Staff, “Troubled Beagle Facility to Close,” Science News, June 16, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

11

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

to bar dog and cat breeding facilities from selling their animals for two years following a USDA
citation for any single serious AWA violation or any three lesser AWA violations.54
Exhibitors: Roadside Zoos
Some Members of Congress have questioned APHIS oversight of roadside zoos and other
exhibitors. In April 2020, 53 Members of Congress wrote to APHIS in response to open and
notorious AWA violations at AWA-licensed animal exhibition facilities that were the subject of
the documentary series Tiger King.55 Among other requests, these Members called on APHIS to
finalize a proposed rule to end the automatic renewal of AWA licenses. In May 2020, APHIS
finalized the rule, and in August 2020, it suspended the featured zoo’s license.56
On January 9, 2023, APHIS opened a public comment period to strengthen the regulation and
standards for wild and exotic animals for exhibition. Future proposed changes would consider
ways to enrich the environments of the regulated animals and possible changes to the AWA
regulations and standards for how captive wild and exotic animals are handled and treated by
personnel.57
Enforcement During the COVID-19 Pandemic
AWA implementation relies in large part on APHIS staff conducting in-person facilities
inspections. Mitigation measures (i.e., social distancing policies and practices) associated with the
public health emergency declared in March 2020—namely the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic—challenged existing standard operating procedures (SOPs) for AWA pre-
license and routine inspections. As a result, APHIS developed new, temporary SOPs to allow for
the continuation of AWA inspections under these new and evolving circumstances.58 In some
cases, these SOPs allowed for advanced scheduling of the typically unannounced compliance
inspections, and they allowed inspections via live-video streaming rather than in-person. As
pandemic conditions improved, APHIS issued additional guidance about both social distancing
and the resumption of in-person inspections.59
Stakeholders including the ASPCA and the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) expressed
concerns that pandemic measures such as limiting, scheduling, and conducting by video routine

54 Meredith Wadman, “In a First, State Bill Would Require Nearly Perfect Welfare Record for Research Dog and Cat
Suppliers,” Science Insider, March 9, 2022 (updated April 7, 2022).
55 Letter from 53 Members of Congress to the APHIS Administrator regarding AWA enforcement, April 27, 2020, at
https://quigley.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/quigley-leads-letter-usda-animal-welfare-enforcement.
56 APHIS, “Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to Requirements for Dogs,” 85 Federal
Register 28772, May 13, 2020; Kaelan Deese, “Zoo Featured on ‘Tiger King’ Closes Permanently after USDA
Suspends License,” The Hill, August 19, 2020.
57 APHIS, “Wild and Exotic Animal Handling, Training of Personnel Involved With Public Handling of Wild and
Exotic Animals, and Environmental Enrichment for Species”, 88 Federal Register 1151.
58 USDA APHIS Animal Care, SOP for Remote Pre-License Inspections, October 21, 2020, at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/sop-for-remote-pre-license-inspections.pdf; and USDA
APHIS Animal Care, SOP for Remote Routine Inspections, December 16, 2020, at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
publications/animal_welfare/sop-for-remote-routine-inspections.pdf.
59 USDA, APHIS Animal Care, Social Distancing Guidelines on AWA Inspections, version of June 3, 2021, with
updated version at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/social-distancing-guidelines-on-
inspection.pdf; and USDA, APHIS Animal Care, Standard Operating Procedures for Resuming Facility Inspections
During the COVID-19 Pandemic, version of June 3, 2021, with updated version at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
publications/animal_welfare/sop-for-resuming-inspections-during-covid19.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 9 The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

inspections resulted in poor AWA oversight.60 The ASPCA called on Congress to investigate
USDA’s AWA administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. If Congress chooses to review
how USDA adapted to changing conditions, it could do so via a congressional hearing or by
requesting a USDA OIG or Government Accountability Office audit.
Animals Used in Research
Animal welfare advocates and some Members of Congress have raised concerns about the
welfare of animals intended for use in research.61 Among stakeholder groups, Speaking of
Research advocates for the importance of animals in research whereas the White Coat Waste
Project advocates for an end to federal funding of animal research.62 The National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s (NASEM’s) Institute for Laboratory Animal Research has
published reports and held public meetings over the years evaluating the need to use animals in
research and potential alternatives to animal research models.63 Both USDA and NIH play roles in
federal oversight of animals used in research.64 Certain legislation introduced in the 117th
Congress would have addressed USDA’s role in laboratory animal welfare through AWA
amendments. Examples of these proposals are provided, below.
APHIS Inspections of Research Facilities
The AWA requires that USDA inspect registered research facilities at least annually. In 2022, the
Harvard Law School Animal Law & Policy Clinic filed a lawsuit against USDA alleging that
USDA does not meet this obligation.65 This lawsuit—filed on behalf of two animal welfare
organizations—alleged that in 2019, USDA began a publicly undisclosed policy of not fully
inspecting research facilities that were accredited by AAALAC. In response to reporting on the
lawsuit, USDA stated that APHIS, “is not using AAALAC inspections. [It] is conducting focused
inspections of research facilities because facilities that are AAALAC accredited generally have
better compliance records, and we can expend less resources on said facilities.”66 Research
published in 2015 suggests that on a per-animal basis, in FY2009 and FY2010, facilities with

60 Matt Bershadker (ASPCA), “Congress: It’s Time to Fix the Systems that Failed Animals During the Pandemic,” The
Hill, June 29, 2021; and Sara Amundson and Kitty Block, “Slow Pace of State and Federal Inspections During
Pandemic Makes Things Worse for Dogs in Puppy Mills,” HSLF blog, April 12, 2021, at https://hslf.org/blog/2021/04/
slow-pace-state-and-federal-inspections-during-pandemic-makes-things-worse-dogs-puppy.
61 For more information on federal laws, regulations, and policies regarding animals used in federally funded
biomedical research, see CRS In Focus IF12002, Animal Use in Federal Biomedical Research: A Policy Overview.
62 For more information, see Speaking of Research, at https://speakingofresearch.com, and White Coat Waste Project,
at https://www.whitecoatwaste.org.
63 NASEM, “Institute for Laboratory Animal Research,” at https://www.nationalacademies.org/ilar/institute-for-
laboratory-animal-research.
64 National Institute of Health’s (NIH’s) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) implements the PHS Policy.
Federal scientific funding agencies also develop their own agency-specific animal welfare policies in addition to those
of the AWA and PHS Policy. For additional information, see “Research Facility Requirements.”
65 Dan Robitzski, “Lawsuit Alleges USDA Secretly Relaxed Animal Welfare Inspections,” The Scientist, April 7, 2022.
66 David Grimm, “USDA Now only Partially Inspects Some Lab Animal Facilities, Internal Documents Reveal,”
Science Insider, May 5, 2021 (hereinafter Grimm 2021).
Congressional Research Service

13

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

AAALAC accreditation received more AWA noncompliance citations from APHIS than facilities
without AAALAC accreditation.67 AAALAC disputes these findings.68
Congress may choose to monitor whether USDA is meeting its congressionally mandated
requirement to inspect registered research facilities at least annually and may consider whether
additional inspection requirements are necessary. Congress may choose to review the role of
AAALAC—a private organization accrediting a portion of the universe of research facilities—in
assuring research facilities’ compliance with the AWA.
Retirement and Adoption of Research Animals
Most laboratory animals are euthanized when they are no longer needed for research.69 Some
laboratory animals may be unsuitable for adoption due to the nature of the research in which they
have been used; for example, if they have been exposed to dangerous pathogens. In some cases,
research institutions decide whether to permit the adoption of their research animals. NIH notes
that the PHS Policy is silent on the issue of research animal adoption and states that the PHS will
not assume responsibility for any research animal adoption program.70 In other cases, federal
agency policy may prohibit animal adoptions, but allow for the sale of the animals. For example,
USDA has determined that USDA’s laboratory animals are federal property and cannot be given
away, but they can be sold, and any profits offset the cost of caring for other research animals.71
The Animal Freedom from Testing, Experiments, and Research Act of 2021 (H.R. 5244/S. 1378,
AFTER Act of 2021) would have required USDA to develop regulations that facilitate the
adoption or retirement of federal research animals no longer needed for research.
Sourcing of Dogs and Cats Used for Research
Dogs and cats used for research are sourced from dealers with Class A and Class B licenses. Class
A dealers are the most common, and they sell animals that they breed and raise themselves. Class
B dealers, also known as random-source dealers, sell animals that they obtain from other sources,
including animal shelters and other dealers.
Critics have asserted that Class B dealers often fail to provide adequate care for animals and that
it has been a challenge to ensure proper documentation of the origins of random-source dogs and
cats.72 Others have contended that most Class B dealers comply with the AWA, and random-
source dogs and cats provide genetic and age diversity not available from Class A dealers.73
Critics’ views were epitomized in the 2006 documentary series, Dealing Dogs, which used

67 Justin R. Goodman, Alka Chandna, and Casey Borch, Does Accreditation by the Association for Assessment and
Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) Ensure Greater Compliance With Animal Welfare
Laws?,” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, vol. 18, no. 1, 2015.
68 For further discussion, see also David Grimm, “Animal Welfare Accreditation Called into Question,” Science,
August 29, 2014, vol. 345, no. 6200, p. 988.
69 Speaking of Research, “FAQ about Animal Research,” at https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/faq-about-animal-
research/#after-experiment.
70 NIH, OLAW, “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals,”
at https://olaw.nih.gov/faqs/#/guidance/faqs.
71 USDA communication with CRS on June 28, 2021.
72 Among other perspectives described, this view is documented in National Research Council (NRC), Scientific and
Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research, National Academies Press, May 2009.
73 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 6 The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

undercover video footage to document poor conditions for animals at Class B facilities.74 A 2009
NASEM report concluded that random-source dogs and cats may be useful and needed for certain
types of biomedical research, but that Class B dealers were not necessary to obtain them.75 At that
time, 11 of the more than 1,000 licensed Class B dealers sold live dogs and cats for research and
teaching.
Since at least FY2016, congressional direction in annual appropriations bills has prohibited the
licensing of Class B dealers who sell random-source dogs and cats for use in research,
experiments, teaching, or testing.76 If Congress chooses to address stakeholder interest in
prohibiting Class B dealers from selling animals for use in research, it could do so by continuing
to include similar language in annual appropriations legislation. Congress could also consider
legislation to codify this prohibition. The Pet Safety and Protection Act (H.R. 3187), first
introduced in 2007 (S. 714/H.R. 1280), has been reintroduced over the years, including in the
117th Congress (H.R. 3187) and 118th Congress (H.R. 208).
The bill would amend the AWA requirements on how research facilities can acquire cats and
dogs. AWA-registered research facilities would not be allowed to purchase cats and dogs from
Class B dealers. The allowed sources of acquiring cats and dogs used in research facilities would
be (1) from a licensed dealer, (2) from a publicly owned and operated pound or shelter, (3) by
donation from a person who bred and raised the dog or cat or owned it for not less than one year,
or (4) from a research facility licensed by USDA. The bill also would establish a $1,000 fine per
violation, in addition to any other applicable penalties.
Animals Not Covered Under the AWA
As discussed in “Covered Animals and Animal Uses,” the welfare concerns for some animals that
are not covered by the AWA are covered by other federal laws. For example, while the AWA does
not cover horses, USDA administers the Horse Protection Act (HPA; P.L. 91-540, 15 U.S.C.
§§1821 et seq.), which addresses the intentional soring of horses to alter their gait. Certain other
animals are not covered by federal laws at all. The exclusion of some of these animals from the
AWA has been the subject of public debate.
Mice, Rats, and Birds Used for Research
Mice and rats used for research are not covered under the AWA, and some advocates have called
on Congress to include them as covered animals.77 Mice and rats are among the most common
research animals: the National Association for Biomedical Research estimates that they comprise
95% of all lab animals.78 The precise number of mice and rats used in U.S. research is unknown,
and it is the subject of some debate. According to a 2022 meta-analysis study, over 120 million

74 Last Chance for Animals, “Dealing Dogs,” 2006, released on HBO. Members of Congress who introduced legislation
on Class B dealers cite this series: Rep. Mike Doyle, “Congressman Doyle and Smith Reintroduce Legislation to
Protect Family Pets,” press release, May 13, 2021.
75 NRC, Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research, 2009.
76 See, for example, Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2023 (P.L. 117-328), Division A—Agriculture.
77 See, for example, Justin Goodman, Alka Chandna, and Katherine Roe, “Trends in Animal Use at U.S. Research
Facilities,” Journal of Medical Ethics, 2015, vol. 41, pp. 563-566; Hal Herzog, “Congress Should Declare Mice are
Animals – Now!,” Huffpost, April 22, 2015, at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-should-declare-mice-are-
animals-now_b_7103092.
78 National Association for Biomedical Research, “The Importance of Animal Research,” at https://www.nabr.org/
biomedical-research/importance-biomedical-research.
Congressional Research Service

15

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

mice and rats are being used annually in U.S. research.79 Advocates for animal research estimate
this number to be between 11 million and 24 million.80
Because mice and rats are excluded from the AWA, there is no legal requirement to count or
report on these animals to USDA. NIH and AAALAC collect some information on mice and rats
used in research, but this information is not aggregated across research institutions, and it is not
publicly available. NIH collects data only from research institutions that receive federal funding
from agencies subject to the PHS Policy, and AAALAC collects information only from research
institutions that voluntarily seek AAALAC accreditation.
In practice, the AWA has never covered rats, mice, or birds used in research. In 1970, Congress
expanded the scope of AWA (P.L. 91-579) to include all warm-blooded animals determined by
USDA to be used for experimentation or exhibition, except horses not used in research and farm
animals used in food and fiber research. Following this change, USDA developed regulations that
administratively excluded mice, rats, and birds for enforcement purposes. In the 2002 farm bill
(P.L. 107-171, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002), Congress amended the statutory
definition of animal to exclude mice, rats, and birds bred for research (§10301), and it required
NASEM to produce a report studying the implications of redefining animal to include these
animals in AWA regulations (§10304).81 This study was never conducted.
If Congress chooses to address the issue of covering mice, rats, and birds used for research under
the AWA, it could do so by (1) again requiring a study of the potential implications of their
inclusion and providing appropriations for the study; (2) enacting legislation to change the
statutory definition of animal to include these animals; or (3) calling on USDA to include these
animals through regulation. Congress may choose to exercise oversight of USDA’s development
of AWA regulations for birds not used in research and USDA’s enforcement of the AWA for such
birds.
Covered, but Unregulated, Animals: Birds Not Used for Research
The statutory definition of animal enacted in 2002 did not exclude birds bred for purposes other
than research. Prior to 2002, AWA regulations had not covered any bird, and USDA did not have
AWA standards for birds. In February 2022, USDA published a proposed rule to establish AWA
standards for birds not used in research,82 and it plans to publish its final rule in 2023.83
Circus Animals
The AWA applies to circuses and traveling animal acts. As exhibitors, circuses and similar acts
must have a license to operate, maintain standards of animal care, and undergo unannounced
inspections. Federal law does not restrict the use of certain types of animals in circuses or other

79 Jessica Cait, Alissa Cait, R. Wilder Scott, Charlotte B. Winder, and Georgia J. Mason. “Conventional laboratory
housing increases morbidity and mortality in research rodents: results of a meta-analysis.” BMC biology 20, no. 1
(2022): 1-22.
80 Speaking of Research, “Worldwide Animal Research Statistics,” at https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-
research-statistics (estimates extrapolated from 2019 AWA reporting data).
81 The legislation specifically calls for an NRC study. The NRC is part of NASEM.
82 APHIS, “Standards for Birds Not Bred for Use in Research Under the Animal Welfare Act,” 87 Federal Register
9880, February 22, 2022.
83 APHIS, “Proposed AWA Standards for Birds (APHIS-2020-0068),” https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
animalwelfare/proposed-awa-standards-for-birds/aphis-2020-0068.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

traveling animal acts. Animal welfare advocates have long called for a ban on the use of animals
in circuses and other traveling animal acts.84 As of June 2022, at least six U.S. states and more
than 130 counties and municipalities have enacted bans on the use of certain animals in circuses
and traveling shows.85 In 2015, the historic Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus
announced that it would end the use of elephants in its shows by 2017. In May 2017, Feld
Entertainment shuttered the circus after 146 years in business.86
If Congress chooses to address the use of exotic and wild animals in traveling shows, it could do
so through legislation. For example, the Traveling Exotic Animal and Public Safety Protection
Act of 2021 (H.R. 5999/S. 3220) introduced in the 117th Congress would have amended the AWA
to prohibit the use of exotic and wild animals in traveling performances.
Animals in Shelters
In general, the AWA does not address animal shelters, which are governed in most aspects by
state and local laws and regulations. An AWA provision that does apply to animal shelters is a
required five-day holding period for dogs or cats newly acquired by animal shelters, pounds, and
research facilities before they can be sold to animal dealers (7 U.S.C. §2158). This waiting period
allows for the dog’s or cat’s recovery by its original owner or adoption by a new individual.
Concerns have been raised regarding missed opportunities to reunite shelter animals with their
owners and the possibility of these random-sourced dogs and cats ending up in research facilities.
The American Veterinary Medical Association asserts that microchipping a pet improves the
chances of recovering a lost or stolen pet.87 The Keeping Pets and Families Together Act (H.R.
4180) introduced in the 117th Congress would have amended this section of the AWA to create a
grant program for animal shelters to label dogs and cats with microchips.

84 See, for example, PETA, “Circuses,” at https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/circuses; and HSUS,
The Truth Behind the Big Top, at https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/truth-behind-the-big-top.pdf.
85 For more information, see Animal Legal Defense Fund, “Prohibiting Circuses and Traveling Shows that Use Wild
Animals,” at https://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Circus-Ban-Factsheet.pdf; and PETA, “Charlotte, New York
City, and Others Ban Wild-Animal Acts in Circuses” (updated May 17, 2021), at https://www.peta.org/features/
animals-in-circuses-banned-cities-states-countries.
86 In October 2021, Feld Entertainment, the owners of Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus, announced
that it plans to reopen the circus without animals in 2023. James Zoltack, “Feld Entertainment Is Bringing Ringling
Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Back,” October 21, 2021, at https://venuesnow.com/feld-entertainment-is-bringing-
the-circus-back.
87 American Veterinary Medical Association, “Microchipping FAQ,” at https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/pet-
owners/petcare/microchips-reunite-pets-families/microchipping-faq.
Congressional Research Service

17

The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues

Author Information

Eleni G. Bickell

Analyst in Agricultural Policy

Acknowledgments
This report is based on an earlier version written by Genevieve K. Croft, former CRS Specialist in
Agricultural Policy.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47179 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
18

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Feb. 8, 2023

HTML · PDF

3% changed

Jul. 14, 2022

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Agricultural Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON