Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act: In Brief

July 14, 2022 R47180

Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act:
In Brief
July 14, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R47180

Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act: In Brief

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 public, or commercially transported. Although Congress also addresses animal
T 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 that deal with covered animals must be licensed or
registered, and they must adhere to minimum standards of care. Certain animals—for example,
horses and farm animals—are excluded from the law. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)—specifically the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)—
administers the AWA.
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. This report summarizes the original
law and selected amendments. For additional information on the AWA, see CRS Report R47179,
The Animal Welfare Act: Background and Selected Issues, by Genevieve K. Croft.
Original Law
Although long known as the Animal Welfare Act, the original law was passed as P.L. 89-544 and
referred to as the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of August 24, 1966. The law required dealers in
dogs and cats for research purposes to obtain a USDA license and to abide by USDA’s humane
treatment requirements. It also required research facilities to register with USDA if they used
dogs or cats and either (1) purchased them in interstate commerce or (2) received federal research
money. The law authorized USDA to set humane handling standards for guinea pigs, nonhuman
primates (e.g., monkeys, lemurs), rabbits, and hamsters as well as dogs and cats—but only dealers
and research facilities with dogs and cats were subject to these standards. Other provisions
identified recordkeeping requirements, enforcement authorities, and noncompliance penalties.
Animal Welfare Act of 1970
The Animal Welfare Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-579) provided the AWA with its name and expanded
animal coverage to include all warm-blooded animals determined by USDA to be used for

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 Services 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 others 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.
Congressional Research Service

1

Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act: In Brief

experimentation or exhibition, except for horses not used in research and other farm animals. This
law also added exhibitors to covered entities; defined research facilities; and exempted from
coverage retail pet stores, agricultural fairs, rodeos, and purebred 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 the following 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. mail 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 from AWA provisions. The amendments passed
over the objections of Members of Congress who opposed dogfighting but supported
cockfighting.3
1985 Farm Bill: Improved Standards for Laboratory
Animals Act
Title XVII, Subtitle F, of the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198, Food Security Act of 1985) directed
USDA to set new minimum standards of care for handling, housing, feeding, water, sanitation,
ventilation, and other aspects of animal care. A new provision that was highly contentious at the
time singled out two types of animals by requiring standards for the exercise of dogs and the
psychological wellbeing of primates. The law required research facilities to use procedures that
minimize pain and distress in research animals, and the law described practices considered to be
painful. It required each research facility to establish an Animal Care Committee (identified in
regulations as the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee [IACUC]) to review research
proposals involving animal experimentation and to provide laboratory oversight. These
amendments also increased civil and criminal penalties for AWA violations and established an
Animal Welfare Information Center at USDA’s National Agricultural Library.4
1990 Farm Bill: Protection of Pets
Section 2503 of the 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624, Food Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act
of 1990) extended pet protections. It required 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 could be sold to a dealer. It prohibited
dealers from selling dogs and cats they did not breed unless they provided certified records on,

3 For more information on the legislative history of animal fighting, see Wayne Pacelle and Richard L. Pacelle Jr., “A
Legislative History of Nonhuman Animal Fighting in the U.S. and Its Territories,” Society and Animals, vol. 29 (2021),
pp. 87-107.
4 These resources are available at USDA National Agricultural Library, “Animal Welfare Information Center,” at
https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic.
Congressional Research Service

2

Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act: In Brief

among other things, the animals’ origin. Other new recordkeeping requirements also were
specified.
2002 Farm Bill: Animal Welfare Amendments
Provisions of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002)
addressed penalties for bird fighting and the definition of animal in the AWA. At the time, bird
fighting was legal in some U.S. states and territories. Title X, Subtitle D, of the 2002 farm bill
made it a misdemeanor to ship a bird in interstate commerce for fighting purposes or to sponsor
or exhibit any bird in a fight with the knowledge that the bird was so shipped (even in fights
within a state where cockfighting was permitted). The law also increased the maximum financial
penalty, from $5,000 to $15,000, for violations (misdemeanors) of the AWA anti-fighting
provisions.
The 2002 law explicitly excluded birds, rats, and mice bred for research from the AWA. USDA
had previously published regulations excluding these animals from coverage under the AWA,
which the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation challenged in federal court.5 When
USDA agreed to settle that case by essentially reversing its regulations, Congress (in P.L. 106-
387, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001) blocked the action by prohibiting the use of appropriations for such a
rule change. The 2002 farm bill codified the exclusion of birds, rats, and mice bred for research
from the AWA. The new definition of animal did not exclude birds not used in research (and as
such, birds not used in research would be included in the definition of animal)—a departure from
USDA’s AWA regulations at the time. As of July 2022, APHIS has not finalized its regulations for
birds not used in research.
Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of
2007
The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-22) made violations of AWA
animal fighting provisions felonies punishable by up to three years in prison, under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code. The law also made it a felony to engage in interstate and foreign commerce of specific
implements used for animal fighting or to use the U.S. Postal Service or other interstate
instrumentality to trade in these implements or promote an animal fighting venture.
Proponents of various animal fighting bills had observed that in 2001, the House and Senate
approved felony animal fighting penalties in their respective farm bills but that conferees
removed the felony language in the final 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171). Congressional debate
over felony penalties continued following enactment of the 2002 farm bill. Proponents argued
that stronger deterrents were needed because animal fighting is a brutal, inhumane practice
closely associated with criminal activity; it endangers children where aggressive dogs are being
reared; and it may contribute to the spread of avian influenza in the case of bird fighting.6
Opponents countered with arguments that felony penalties for animal fighting would violate
provisions in the U.S. Constitution that protect states’ rights—including the Commerce Clause

5 Alternatives Research & Development Foundation v. Glickman, 101 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2000).
6 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,
Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2005, hearing on H.R. 817, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., May 18, 2006.
Congressional Research Service

3

Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act: In Brief

(Article 1, §8, Clause 3)—that recognize private citizens’ right to travel for economic reasons.7
Other opponents argued that completely banning or stiffening penalties for all animal fighting
activities would drive these ventures further underground, undermining efforts to protect animals
and the public from any public health or other consequences of these activities.8
2008 Farm Bill: Animal Welfare Amendments
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) included AWA
amendments focused on animal fighting and dog importation. Section 14207 strengthened the
definitions of, and penalties for, animal fighting activities. This provision increased the maximum
imprisonment for violations from three years to five years. This change was based on language in
the Dog Fighting Prohibition Act (H.R. 3219) and its companion bill (S. 1880)—bills introduced
shortly after the 2007 indictment of National Football League quarterback Michael Vick on
charges related to dogfighting. These bills proposed a definition for a dog fighting venture and
more explicit bans on various dogfighting activities.9
The 2008 farm bill also required USDA to develop regulations prohibiting the importation for
resale of dogs unless they were at least six months of age, in good health, and had all necessary
vaccinations. It allowed exemptions for research, veterinary treatment, or imports into Hawaii
from certain countries. APHIS finalized regulations in 2014 requiring an APHIS-issued permit for
importing live dogs into the United States for resale, research, or veterinary treatment.10 Section
14214 of the 2008 farm bill increased the maximum penalty from $2,500 to $10,000 for each
general AWA violation.
2014 Farm Bill: Animal Welfare Amendments
Prior to enactment of the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, Agricultural Act of 2014), animal fighting
or hosting an animal fighting exhibition was prohibited but attending an animal fighting
exhibition was not. The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (H.R. 366/S. 666),
reintroduced in the 113th Congress, would have imposed criminal penalties for attending animal
fighting exhibitions or for causing a minor individual to attend. This measure was included as
Section 12308(b) of the 2014 farm bill.
Section 12308(a) of the 2014 farm bill established a new de minimis standard for the AWA. The
de minimis provision applies to the entire AWA and gives APHIS new discretionary authority to
exclude licensing and registration requirements for animal dealers and exhibitors “if the size of
the business is determined by the Secretary to be ‘de minimis.’” APHIS published the final rule in
June 2018, remarking that this change allows APHIS “to focus its limited resources on situations
that pose a higher risk to animal welfare and public safety.”11

7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 For information on Michael Vick’s indictment, see ESPN.com News Service, “Falcons’ Vick Indicted by Grand Jury
in Dogfighting Probe,” July 17, 2007, at https://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=2940065.
10 USDA APHIS, “Animal Welfare; Importation of Live Dogs,” 79 Federal Register 48653, August 18, 2014.
11 APHIS, “Thresholds for De Minimis Activity and Exemptions From Licensing Under the Animal Welfare Act,” 83
Federal Register 25549, June 4, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

4

Legislative History of the Animal Welfare Act: In Brief

2018 Farm Bill: Animal Welfare Amendments
The 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334, Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018) includes animal welfare
provisions deriving from legislation proposed in the 115th Congress, such as the Parity in Animal
Cruelty Enforcement Act (H.R. 4202, PACE Act), the Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act
(H.R. 6720), and the Pet and Women Safety Act of 2017 (H.R. 909/S. 322, PAWS Act).
The PACE Act, included as Section 12616 of the 2018 farm bill, extends the federal ban on
animal fighting to U.S. territories, in addition to U.S. states (7 U.S.C. §2156). The Dog and Cat
Meat Trade Prohibition Act, included as Section 12515 (7 U.S.C. §2160), prohibits the slaughter
of dogs and cats for human consumption and sets a $5,000 fine for each violation. The PAWS
Act, included as Section 12502 (34 U.S.C. §20127), expands domestic violence protections to
include pets and directs USDA to make grants to provide temporary housing opportunities for
domestic violence victims to shelter with their pets.

Author Information

Genevieve K. Croft

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
R47180 · VERSION 1 · NEW
5

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jul. 14, 2022

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Agricultural Policy

Health Policy

Intelligence and National Security

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON