Business meetings on Animal welfare act amendments of 1976


Material Information

Business meetings on Animal welfare act amendments of 1976
Physical Description:
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Agriculture
U.S. Govt. Print. Off. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 22350652
System ID:

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Thursday, September 11, 1975
        Page 1
    H.R. 5808, a bill to amend the act of August 24, 1966, as amended to assure humane treatment of certain animals, and other purposes
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Friday, September 12, 1975
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Wednesday, September 17, 1975
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Thursday, September 25, 1975
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Wednesday, October 8, 1975
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    Wednesday, November 12, 1975
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
    Wednesday, January 21, 1976
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
    Thursday, January 22, 1976
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
    S. 1941, a bill to increase the protection afforded animals in transit and to assure the humane treatment of animals, and for other purposes
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
    Back Cover
        Page 112
Full Text

94th Congress I






S. 1941
September 11, 12, 17, and 25, October 8, and November 12,
1975, and January 21 and 22, 1976

Public Law 94-279




Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture



~ '1%
z-~. ~
t< ~\


79-917 0

THOMAS S. FOLEY, Washington, Chairman

W. R. POAGE, Texas, Vice Chairman
JOSEPH P. VIGORITO, Pennsylvania
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ED JONES, Tennessee
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi
CHARLES ROSE, North Carolina
JERRY LITTON, Missouri 1
JOHN KREBS, California
JOHN W. JENRETTE, J&, South Carolina
NORMAN E. D'AMOURS, New Hampshire 2

Ranking Minority Member
MARGARET M. HECKLER, Massachusetts
W. HENSON MOORE. Louisiana

Professional Staff
FOWLER C. WEST. Staff Director
ROBZRT M. Boa, Counsel
JOHN R. KRAMER, Special Coumnsel
L. T. EASLEY, Press Assistant
Deceased August 3, 1976.
2 Resigned from Committee April 8, 1976.
SAssigned december 17, 1975.



Thursday, September 11, 1975---------------------------------------- 1
H.R. 5808, a bill to amend the act of August 24, 1966, as amended to as-
sure humane treatment of certain animals, and for other purposes ---. 2
U.S. Department of Agriculture report---------------------------- 14
U.S. Postal Service report--------------------------------------- 15
Interstate Commerce Commission report--------------------------- 16
U.S. Department of Justice report-------------------------------- 18

Friday, September 12, 1975------------------------------------------ 23

Wednesday, September 17, 1975------------------------------------- 25

Thursday, September 25, 1975--------------------------------------- 27

Wednesday, October 8, 1975----------------------------------------- 29

Wednesday, November 12, 1975-------------------------------------- 55

Wednesday, January 21, 1976---------------------------------------- 67
S. 1941, a bill to increase the protection afforded animals in transit and to
assure the humane treatment of animals, and for other purposes ------- 89

Thursday, January 22, 1976----------------------------------------- 83

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013


WIashington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., pursuant to call, in room 1302,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Melcher, Bergland, Litton, Nolan, High-
tower, English, Sebelius, and Hagedorn.
Staff present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; John E. Hogan, associate
counsel; John Baize, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Livestock
and Grains; Norman Gay, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Oilseeds
and Rice.
[Before considering H.R. 5808 the subcommittee had conducted a
hearing on another matter.]
Mr. POAGE. We have spent considerable time with H.R. 5808, which
is identical to H.R. 6583, amending the Animal Welfare Act.
[The bill H.R. 5808 and the reports from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Postal Service, Interstate Commerce Commission,
and Justice Department follow:]


1STSESIO H. R. 5808

APRIL 9, 1975
Mr.' FOLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Agriculture

To amend the Act of August 24, 1966, as amended, to assure
humane treatment of certain animals, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 ives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "Animal Welfare Act
4 Amendments of 1975".
5 SEC. 2. The Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act
6 of August 24, 1966 (80 Stat. 350, as amended by the
7 Animal Welfare Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1560; 7 U.S.C.
8 2131-2155) is hereby further amended by adding thle fol-
9 lowing at the end of the first section thereof: "It is also
10 essential for humane reasons to prohibit certain animal fight-
11 ing ventures. "The Congress hereby finds that animals and

1 activities which are regulated under this Act are either in
2 interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such
3 commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of
4 animals and activities as provided in this Act is necessary to
5 prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce, to
6 effectively regulate such commerce, and to carry out the
7 objectives of this Act.".

8 SEc. 3. Section 2 of such Act is amended by deleting
9 paragraph (d) defining "affecting commerce"; and by
10 amending paragraph (c) defining "commerce" by chang-
11 ing the last clause to read "or within any State, territory, or
12 possession, or the District of Columbia, or the Common-
13 wealth of Puerto Rico.".
14 SEC. 4. Such Act is further amended by deleting the

15 term "affecting commerce," from paragraphs (c) and (f)
16 of section 2 and sections 4, 11, and 12, wherever the quoted
17 term appears therein, and by substituting therefore the term
18 "in commerce,"; and by deleting, from paragraph (h) of

19 section 2, the phrase "or the intended distribution of which
20 affects commerce, or will affect commerce," and substituting
21 therefore the phrase "or are intended to be moved in
22 commerce,".
23 SEC. 5. Section 2 of such Act is further amended by
24 adding thereto two new paragraphs to read:


1 "(i) The term intermediatee handler' means any per-
2 sien (other than a dealer, research facility, exhibitor, any

3 pr:cn excluded from the -definition of a dealer, research

4 facility, or exhibitor, an operator of an auction sale, or a

5 carrier, who is engaged in any business in which lie receives

6 custody of animals in connection with their transportation

7 in commerce.

8 (j) The term 'carrier' means the operator of any air-

9 line, railroad, shipping line, or other enterprise, which is

10 engaged in the business of transporting any animals for hire.".

11 SEC. 6. Section 6 of such Act is amended by inserting

12 after the term "research facility", a comma and the term

13 "every intermediate handler, every carrier,". '
14 SEC. 7. Section 9 of such Act is amended by inserting

15 after the term "Section 12 of thii: Act,", the term "or an

16 intermediate hindler, or a carrier,", and by deleting the term

17 "or an operator of an auction sale as well as of such person"

18 at the end of section 9 and substituting therefore the following

19 term: "operator of an auction sale, intermediate handler, or

20 c''cr, ;S well as of such person.".

21 SEC. 8. Section 10 of such Act is amended by deleting

22 the phrase "'ipon forms supplied by the Secretary" from the

23 first sentence and by adding after the second sentence a new

24 sentence to read as follows:


1 ."SEc. 10. Intermediate handlers and carriers shall make

2 and retain for such reasonable period of time as the Secretary
3. may prescribe, such records with respect to the transporta-
4 tion, receiving, handling, and delivering of animals as the
5 Secretary may prescribe.".
,6 SEC. 9. Section 13 of such Act is amended by designat-
7 ing the provisions thereof as paragraph (a) and by adding,
8 after the second sentence therein, a new sentence to read:
9 "The Secretary shall also promulgate standards to govern

10. the transportation in commerce, and the handling, care, and
11 treatment in connection therewith, by intermediate handlers,
12 air carriers, or other carriers, of animals consigned by any

13 dealer, research, facility, exhibitor, operator of an auction
1.4 sale, or other person, or any department, agency, or instru-
15 mentality of the United States, for transportation in corn-
16, merce. The standards shall include such requirements with
17,. respect to containers, feed, water, rest, ventilation, tempera-
18 ture, handling, adequate veterinary care, and other factors as
19 the Secretary determines are relevant in assuring humane

20 treatment of animals in the course of their transportation in

21 commerce.".
22, SEC. 10. Section 13 of such Act is further amended by
2,3 adding at the end thereof new paragraphs (b), (c), and
24 (d) toread:
25 "(b) No animal, shall be delivered by any dealer,


1 research facility, exhibitor, operator of an auction sale, or

2 department, agency, or instrumnentality of the United States,
3 to any intermediate handler or carrier for transportation in

4 commerce, or received by any such handler or carrier for such

5 transportation from any such person, department, agency, or

6 instrumentality, unless the animal is accompanied by a certifi-
7 cate issued by a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary

8 medicine, certifying that he inspected the animal on a speci-
9 fled date, which shall not be more than ten days before such

10 delivery, and, when so inspected, the animal was sound and

11 healthy. Such certificates received by the intermediate han-

12 dlers and the carriers shall be retained by them, as provided
13 by regulations of the Secretary, in accordance with section 10

14 of this Act.
15 "(c) No dogs or cats, or additional kinds or classes of

16 animals designated by regulation of the Secretary, shall be

17 delivered by any person to any intermediate handler or car-
18 rier for transportation in commerce except to registered re-
19 search facilities if they are less than eight weeks of age, or

20 such other age as the 'Secretary may by regulation prescribe.

21 The Secretary shall designate additional kinds and classes of

22 animals and may prescribe ages different than eight weeks

23 for particular kinds or classes of dogs, cats, or designated
24 animals, for the purposes of this section, when he determines

25 that such action is necessary or adequate to assure their


t humane treatment in connection with their transportation in

:20 .oommerce. .
l3 :"(d) No intermediate handler or careerr involved in

4. the transportation of any animal in commetcc shall partici-
pate in any arrangement or engage in any practice under

-6 :which the cost of such animal or the cost of the transporta-

7:. tlion of such animal is to be paid and collected.upon delivery
-8 .-of the animal to. the consignee, unless the consigner guarain-

91 -tees in writing the payment of transportation charges, includ-
10 ing, where necessary, both the return transportation charges

it. and:an amount sufficient t0 reimburse the carrier for all out-
I2,.of'pocket expenses incurred for the care, feeding, and storage

13 .of any live creatures.".
14 SEc. 11. Section 15 of such Act is amended by inserting

15 --after the termA "exhibition" in the first sentence, a comma
16 and the term-"or administration of statutes regulating the
17,. transportation in commerce or handling in connection ther,-

18 Iwith-of any animals", and by adding the following at the end

19 .oI-the sentence: '"Before promulgating any standard. govern-

20i'ing :the air transportation anid handling in connection there-
21 ,,with, bf animaids, the Secretary shall consult with the Secre-

22 ,tary .f Transportation who shall have the authority to

2,s disapprove any such standard if he notifies the Sere 'a:r,
24i'iwithih thirty 'days after such consultation, that changes in its
25 ;rfoisions are necessary in the interest of flight safety.".


1 SEC. 12. Paragraph (a) of section 16 of such Act is

2 amended by inserting the term "intermediate handler, car-

3 rier," in the first sentence after the term "exhibitor,,' each

4 time the latter term appears in the sentence; by inserting

5 -before the period in the second sentence, a comma and the

6 term "or (5) such animal is held by an intermediate handler

7 or a carrier" and by deleting the term "or" before the term
8 "(4) in the third sentence.

9 SEC. 13. Section 19 of such Act is amended by adding

10 at the end thereof the following new paragraph (d):
11 "(d) Any intermediate handler or carrier that violates

12 any provision of section 13 of this Act or any standard

13 promulgated thereunder may be assessed a civil penalty by
14 the Secretary of not more than $1,000 for each such viola-

15 tion. Each violation shall be a separate offense. No penalty

16 shall be assessed unless such person is given notice and

17 opportunity for a hearing with respect to the alleged viola-

18 tion, and the order of the Secretary assessing a penalty

19 shall be final and conclusive unless the affected person files
20 an appeal from the Secretary's order with the appropriate

21 United States court of appeals. Such court shall have ex-

22 elusive jurisdiction to enjoifin, set aside, suspend .(in whole
23 or in part), or to determine the validity of the Secretary's

24 order, and the provisions of sections 2341, 2343 through

25 2350 of title 28, United States Code, shall be applicable

1 to such appeals and orders. Any such civilpenalty may be
-2 coInpromised by the Secretary. Upon ainy failure to pay the
:-.penalty a-sessed by a final order under this section, the

4. Secretary shall request the Attorney General to institute a
,s- civil actiort in a, district court of the United States or other

6: I.rtited States court for aany district in which such person
7-: is, fomid or' resides or transmits business, to collect the-pen-

8 alty, and such court shall have.jurisdiction to hear and
9. decide any such action.".
10 SEc. 14. Section 24 of such Act is amended by insert-
11 'ing a& comma and the term "intermediate handlers, and car-
12 ..riers" ,after -the term "dealers" in the third sentence; and by
13' adding a comma and the following provisions before the pe-
14 riod at the end of the firinst sentence: "except that the regu-
15 :lationw relating to inte-nnediate handlers and carriers shall
1,6: be prescribed no later than nine months from the date of
17:..,enactment. of the 'Animal Welfare Act Amendments of

19! $ECI 15. Section 25 of such Act is amended by inserting
20. ;,after.suhseetion (3) the following new subsection:

21? /, i' (4) .re'onineiidations and. conclusions concern-
2.: ;- ing the. aircraft environment as it relates to the carriage
23;::,..T9ie aauimals in air transportation."

24*^^ S^ 16. .(a) SuchAct is, amended by' adding at the
2-, ed. thereof the following new section: ,

1 "SEC. 26. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to
2 knowingly sponsor, or exhibit an animal in any animal fight-
3 ing venture to which any animal was moved in interstate or

4 foreign commerce.

5 (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, buy,

6 transport, or deliver to another person or receive from an-
7 other person for purposes of transporbttion, in interstate or

8 foreign commerce any dog or other animal for purposes of
9 having the dog or other animal participate in an animal

10 fi ghtiing venture.

11 "(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly
12 use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or
13 any interstate instrumentality for purposes of promoting or
14 in any other manner furthering an animal fighting venture.
15 Section 3001 (a) of title 39, United States Code, is amended

16 by adding immediately after the words "title 18" a comma
17 and the words "or section 26 of the Federal Laboratory

18 Animal Welfare Act".

19 "(d) Any person who violates subsection (a), (b),

20 or (c) shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned
21 for not more than one year, or both, for each such violation.
22 (e) The Secretary or any other person authorized by
23 him shliall make such investigations as the Secretary deems

24 necessary to determine whether any person has violated or

25 is violating any provision of this section, and the Secretary


1 may obtainii the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-

2 tion, the Departmenit of the Treasury, or other law enforce-
3 ment agencies of the United States, and State and local
4 governmental agencies, in the conduct of such investigations,

5 under cooperative agreements with such agencies. A warrant

6 to search for and seize any animal which there is probable
7 cause to believe was involved in any violation of this section

8 may be issued by any judge of the United States or of a State
9 court of record or by a United States commissioner within

10 the district wherein the animal sought is located. Any United
11 States marshal or any person authorized under this section

12 to conduct investigations may apply for and execute any such
13 warrant, and any animal seized under such a warrant shall

14 be held by the United States marshal or other authorized
15 person pending disposition thereof by the court in accordance
16 with this paragraph (e). Necessary care including veterinary
17 treatment shall be provided while the animals are so held in

18 custody. Any animal involved in any violation of this section
19 shall be liable to be proceeded against and forfeited to the

20 United States at any time on complaint filed in any United
21 States district court or other court of the United States for

22 any jurisdiction in which the animal is found and upon a
23 judgment of forfeiture shall be disposed of by sale for lawful
24 purposes or by other humane means, as the court may direct.
25 Costs incurred by the United States for care of animals seized

.*" ",* ** ir, ,{:. ; .* *f ,

l and for.eifled umdon t'is:seetion shall 'beir.eco64erable from tie
i2,- lowne' of thie .animals'if;ie appears su*h forfditure;.proceed-
.3hig ,or in a separate iv tion -broughtin the jurisdiction in
.3, iPri-a Fiepaate.l atn o
'-^ -'* ( '"'r .
4 which the owner is found, reside;,or transacts business. .

5 s'.: ,f) For *urpos&s of: this section- 3 2f -,

6 ( ;em1:..thi.temn nhmal fighting 'venture' means aiy
*~ ~ ~ ~ . ' .'. .' -
-7 .even Vwhieh involves fightbetweefn afleast two 'animals

.k .,,' and is. conducted fori purposes .'of sport,;wagering, 6r

9;. e. intertainm en t; ... .. t, ,**, :,, ,. -

10 "(2) the term 'interstate idr foreign! commere'
13i- m ealns ** '*' *.- r" \ -: *i I ;" ....

12. ;- ,- (I(A) any movement' between iny; place' in a

13J State t, any place- in another State'or between places
14: ,*iu'.the snime State through anotheriState.; or-s '

15.,' .; (-B) any movemnient from a' foreign country

16 into any State, ': '.

17 "(3) the term 'interstate instrumentality means tele-

18 graph, telephone, radio, or -television operating in inter-

19 state or foreign commerce;

20 "(4) the term 'State' means any State of the United

21 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of

22 Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the

23. United.States;

21 (5) the term 'animal' means any live dog or other

25 nammalni, except man.; and


1 (6) the conduct by any person of any activity
2 -prohibited by this section shall not render such person

3 subject to the other sections of this act as a dealer,

4 exhibitor, or otherwise.

5 "(g) The provisions of this Act shall not supersede or

6 otherwise invalidate any such State, loal, or municipal leg-

7 isolation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures ex-

8 cept in case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between

9 any requirements thereunder and this Act or any rule, regu-

10 lation, or standard hereunder.".

11 SEc. 18. If any provision of this Act or of the amend-

12 ments made hereby or the application thereof to any person

13 or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder
14 of theAct and the remaining aminendments and of the applica-

15 tion of such provision to other persons and circumstances

16 shall not be affected thereby.

79-917 0 76- 2


Washington, D.C., September 25,1975.
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for a report on H.R.
5808, a bill "To amend the Act of August 24, 1966, as amended, to assure humane
treatment of certain animals, and for other purposes."
This Department does not favor enactment of the bill.
The bill would amend the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, as amended, to
provide further measures to assure humane treatment of animals, as defined in
the Act. The bill expands the scope of the Act to include "intermediate handlers"
and "carriers," clarifies coverage with respect to intrastate commerce, and au-
thorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards governing the
transportation in commerce and related handling by such intermediate handlers
and carriers of animals received from dealers or other persons or agencies reg-
ulated under the present Act. It also prohibits delivery by any person to an in-
termediate handler or carrier for transportation of certain animals before they
reach a minimum age, and prohibits specified collect-on-delivery arrangements
unless payment of transportation charges, including, where necessary, return
transportation charges and other expenses incurred by the carrier are guaranteed
in writing by the consignor. The bill requires that animals to be delivered by any
dealer or other presently regulated person or agency to any intermediate handler
or carrier for transportation in commerce be accompanied by a certificate issued
by a licensed veterinarian certifying that the animals are sound and healthy.
The bill provides for a civil penalty, not to exceed $1,000, for violation of any
of the provisions of section 13 of the Act, or any standard promulgated under
the Act. It also requires consultation with the Secretary of Transportation in
promulgating the standards governing air transportation of animals.
The bill adds a new section to the Act making it a criminal offense for any
person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in a fighting venture to which
any animal was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. It also makes it un-
lawful for any person to sell, buy, transport or deliver, or receive for the purposes
of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce any dog or other animal for
the purposes of having it participate in a fighting venture. In addition, the bill
makes it unlawful to knowingly use the U.S. Postal Service or any interstate
instrumentality or promote, or in any other manner further, such a venture.
There are available alternative measures which can achieve many of the ob-
jectives of the bill. These alternatives should be fully explored and tested before
any additional legislative action is taken.
Representatives of the animal carriers, freight forwarders, animal dealers,
humane societies, animal science professionals, State and Federal agencies, and
other interested parties could collectively develop and agree on animal trans-
portation standards and procedures that would be acceptable to all and which
could be followed on a voluntary basis. An appropriate forum for this would be
the National Council on Animal Transportation, which has representation from
nearly all of the interested parties in animal transportation.
The Civil Aeronautics Board has initiated administrative proceedings relating
to the rules and practices for the acceptance and carriage of live animals in
domestic air freight transportation. Following these proceedings, the Depart-
ment could provide guidelines which the interested and involved public and the
animal carriers could use to provide a uniform base for transporting animals.
Another focal point for effective activity would be in the Interagency Commit-
tee on Live Animal Transportation formed at the recommendation of the House
Committee on Government Operations. The original purpose of the Committee
was to cover only air transportation of animals. Its charter could be broadened
to include other forms of transportation, and its membership could be expanded
to include other transportation regulatory agencies such as the Interstate Com-
merce Commission. The Interagency Committee held an organizational meeting
on October 30, 1974. It was decided that rather than duplicate the efforts and
information being assimilated by the Civil Aeronautics Board's administrative
hearing, the Committee would wait until the information from the hearing could
be assembled and summarized before determining a proper course of action. A
meeting of the Committee will be held this year, subsequent to the CAB hearing,
and improvement in the humane care and treatment of animals during transpor-
tation will be actively pursued.

Concerning the animal fighting provisions of H.R. 5808, the Department
strongly opposes the holding of such events. However, we do not have the kind of
trained manpower and other resources necessary to prohibit animal fights or
arrest the involved persons. In our view, this is a proper responsibility of State
and local law enforcement agencies and, with few exceptions, laws exist at that
level, which would permit effective dealing with this problem.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to
the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's
Assistant Secretary.

Washington, D.C., May 15, 1975.
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request for the views of the Postal
Service on H.R. 5808, the proposed "Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1975".
This bill would further amend the Federal Aninmal Welfare Act of 1966, as
amended by the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 2131-2155), to prescribe
additional regulations and record-keeping requirements for commercial carriers
of certain warm-blooded animals, and to prohibit certain fighting ventures.
The basic purpose of sections 1 through 15 of this legislation is to enhance
the welfare of animals transported in interstate commerce for use in research
facilities, or for exhibition purposes, or for use as pets. However, the proposed
amendments, like the existing statutes, would not apply to: * farm animals,
such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food
or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal
nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the
quality of food or fiber. 7 U.S.C. 2132(g).
Since the only warm-blooded animals that may be carried in the mails are live
day-old poultry, 39 C.F.R. 124.3 3(c) (2) (ii), it is clear that transportation of
such farm animals by mail would not be covered by this legislation. In our opinion,
there is no need for such coverage, because the welfare of day-old poultry in the
mails is insured by detailed Postal Service regulations which exhibit a high
degree of sensitivity to that welfare. 39 C.F.R. 124.3(c) (1) (i) through (xiv).
We would oppose any amendment of the bill to apply the restrictions of 7 U.S.C.
2131, et seq., to the shipment of baby poultry from hatchery to farm through
the mail, which has been an important and highly-regulated function of the
Postal Service for many years, or to otherwise limit the availability of this
service to farmers and other rural Americans.
Section 16 of H.R. 5808 would add a new section 26 to the Federal Laboratory
Animal Welfare Act imposing criminal penalties on those engaged in certain
animal fighting ventures. We note that proposed section 26(c) would specifically
make it unlawful for any person "to knowingly use the mail service of the United
States Postal Service" for promoting or furthering an animal fighting venture.
Proposed section 26(c) also contains language, suggested in our report on similar
legislation in the last Congress, H.R. 16738, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), which
would amend 39 U.S.C. 3001(a), a postal mailability statute, to enable the
Postal Service to seize and dispose of animal fighting publications and advertise-
ments placed in the mails.
In order to avoid ambiguity and insure that this legislation, if enacted, is
given full effect, we suggest that the language now contained in lines 15 through
18 on page 9 of H.R. 5808 be set forth as a separate section of H.R. 5808 and not
as part of a new section of the Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. This
technical change will facilitate the codification of the mailability provision of
H.R. 5808 and promote the effectiveness of Federal law prohibiting animal fight-
ing ventures.
We are unable, with any degree of precision, or reasonable guaranty of
accuracy, to estimate the costs of this legislation over the next five years. How-
ever, we note that the enactment of new criminal statutes invariably impose
additional investigatory, prosecutorial, and judicial costs on the criminal justice
system. In most cases these costs must be met from the pool of available executive

and judicial resources, sometimes detracting from the expeditions and
thorough enforcement of previously existing criminal statutes. The exact costs
of H.R. 5808 will depend upon a number of factors, including the number of
illegal animal fighting operations, the degree of public support for enforcement
of the law, and the ease with which clandestine animal fights can be conducted
and detected. Obviously, these factors are exceedingly difficult to quantify.
As we indicated to you in our report on H.R. 16738, we believe that Congress
is best equipped to decide whether it is desirable as a matter of public policy
to apply the sanctions of Federal criminal law to those engaged in organized
animal fighting activity, and whether there is adequate justification for expending
the finite resources of Federal law enforcement agencies in this area. Accordingly,
we do not oppose the enactmentof legislation such as H.R. 5808.
Assistant General Counsel.

Washington, D.C., August 11, 1975.
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN FOLEY: This replies to your request for our views on H.R.
5808, the "Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1975."
The Animal Welfare Act, as found in 7 U.S.C. 2131 et. seq., provides that the
Secretary of Agriculture shall establish regulations for the humane treatment
of animals purchased, handled, sold, and transported by dealers to research
facilities or exhibitors in interstate commerce. The Act further requires the
licensing of dealers and exhibitors as well as the registration of research facili-
ties. It is unlawful under the Act for any research facility to purchase any dog
or cat from an unlicensed dealer. Records are required to be kept of all sales or
transportation of animals by dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities. The
Secretary has been granted investigatory powers and a violation could result in
civil penalties or a criminal fine. Common carriers are specifically excluded from
the Act.
The original purpose of the Animal Welfare Act was to regulate the supplying
and treatment of animals being sold to research facilities. In 1966, Congress
learned that many hundreds of animals were being supplied to such research
facilities yearly. In order to meet the demand many inhumane dealers began to
steal pets such as dogs and cats from their owners for resale. These animals
often were ill-treated by the dealers and research facilities. The Animal Welfare
Act was passed to curb these abuses and theft* of pets. See, 1966 U.S. Code Cong.
and Adm. News, p. 2635.
This bill would create the Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1975. The
term "commerce" would be expanded to include transportation within the states.
Also, the bill now will subject intermediate handlers, and carriers to the record-
keeping requirements. The Secretary will be given the further power to provide
regulations regarding the proper treatment of animals being transported by
carriers. The amendments will provide for civil penalties for violation of these
Section 5 of the bill defines the term "carrier" to mean the "operator of any
airline, railroad, shipping line, or other enterprise, which is engaged in the
business of transporting any animals for hire." Obviously, this definition will
include a motor carrier transporting animals, however, for purposes of clarity,
section 5(j) of the bill should be amended to include specifically motor common
and contract carriers. Clearly, the intent of the bill is to cover motor transporta-
tion. and this amendment would remove any doubt as to its applicability. A
significant portion of this traffic moves by motor carrier.
Section 10 adds new sections 13(b), (c), and (d) to the Animal Welfare Act.
New Section 13(d), by prohibiting C. 0. D. and similar shipping arrangements,
except in certain circumstances, directly affects the rights and obligations of
shippers and carriers under the Interstate Commerce Act. These types of ship-
ping arrangements are prohibited unless the consigner guarantees in writing
the payment of transportation charges including where necessary, both the re-
turn transportation charges and an amount sufficient to reimburse the carrier
for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred for the care, feeding, and storage of any
live creatures being transported by carriers. The amendments will provide for
civil penalties for violation of these regulations.

Before attaching such conditions to C. 0. D. traffic, no doubt the Subcommittee
will compile an exhaustive record as to the need for such action, and, if such
action is required, this Commission will cooperate by enforcing the partial ban
on this traffic. Notwithstanding the proposed partial prohibition against C. 0. D.
and similar shipping arrangements, even if the shipment is prepared there may
arise instances in which the animals being shipped may be returned to the
originating carrier or shipper because of the inability of the originating carrier
to arrange for movement beyond its lines. Section 216 (c) of the Interstate Com-
merce Act provides that motor common carriers may establish reasonable
through routes and joint rates with other such carriers or other specified com-
mon carriers. If we had authority, which we have requested from Congress, to
require the establishment by motor carriers of joint rates and through routes,
the problem referred to above could be obviated.
Section 15 of the Act presently requires the Secretary to consult and cooperate
with all Federal agencies concerned with the welfare of animals. Section 11 of
the bill adds a provision requiring the Secretary to consult with agencies con-
cerned with regulation of transportation. The bill specifically requires the Secre-
tary to consult with the Secretary of Transportation who shall have the au-
thority to disapprove any standard promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture
governing air transportation if he finds disapproval necessary for flight safety.
A specific provision could be added granting the regulatory agencies the right
to disapprove any standard which interferes with their statutory regulatory
Section 19 of the Act is to be amended to allow the Secretary to assess a civil
penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation. The violator will be given
an opportunity to be heard but the Secretary's assessment shall be final unless
an appeal is filed with the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. The
Attorney General is granted authority to institute a civil action to collect such
penalty if not paid.
If amended, section 19 will present some problems. First, it establishes a maxi-
mum penalty of $1,000 for each violation but provides for no minimum penalty
although one is provided for in the original "28 Hour" statute (45 U.S.C. 71-74).
A minimum penalty is desirable in order to prevent an administrator or judge
from abusing his discretion in assessing a ridiculously low penalty. Second, the
section states that each violation shall be a separate offense. It is not clear if a
violation is one shipment or one inhumane act in the treatment of one animal in
violation of the regulations of the Secretary. This point should be clarified.
We should also note that on sheet 11, lines 10-16, the draft bill seeks to define
the terms "interstate commerce" and "foreign commerce." We would suggest that
the definitions should specifically identify interstate commerce and foreign com-
merce in a manner similar to the definitions in section 203 of the Interstate
Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 303). Furthermore, under the present definition, it
appears that while the proposed bill would govern the transportation of animals
"from a foreign country into any State," it would exempt transportation "from
a State for export to a foreign country."
Finally, the bill would add a new section 26 to the Animal Welfare Act which
would prohibit certain activities in connection with animal fighting ventures. It
would make it unlawful for any person knowingly to sponsor or exhibit an
animal moved in interstate commerce in any animal fighting venture or know-
ingly to use the mails for the purpose of promoting such a venture. New section
26(b) would make it unlawful for any person to sell, buy, transport, deliver, or
receive a dog or other animal for the purpose of having the animal participate
in a fighting venture. The word "knowingly" which is used in delineating the
other offenses is not included in proposed section 26(b). We believe that the
word "knowingly" should be included in this section of the legislation. It would
be unreasonably burdensome to require carriers to be informed of the purposes
of the shipper in transporting the animal and would be unfair to the carriers to
penalize/ them for performing these services when they had no knowledge of
the purposes of the shipper.
In conclusion, the Commission has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 5808,
if the above suggestions are adopted.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this legislation.
Sincerely yours,


Washington, D.C., October 8, 1975.
Chairman, Agriculture Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the Department's
views on H.R. 5808, a bill "To amend the Act of August 24, 1966, as amended, to
assure humane treatment of certain animals, and for other purposes."
This bill would amend the Act of August 24, 1966, as amended, by providing
numerous measures aimed at assuring humane treatment of certain animals. The
provisions of the bill which are of particular interest to the Department of
Justice are contained in sections 13 and 16.
Section 13(d) of the bill provides for the addition of a new paragraph (d) at
the end of Section 19 of the Act, providing for the assessment by the Secretary of
Agriculture of a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation of any
intermediate handler or carrier of any provision of Section 13 of the Act. It pro-
vides further for notice to the alleged offender and an opportunity for a hearing
with respect to the alleged violation. The order of the Secretary assessing a pen-
alty shall be final and conclusive unless the affected person files an appeal from
the Secretary's order with the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. These
courts are granted exclusive jurisdiction under the Act to enjoin, set aside, sus-
pend in whole or in part, or determine the validity of the Secretary's order. The
provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2341 and 2343 through 2350 are made applicable to such
appeals and orders. This Section also authorizes the Secretary to compromise any
such civil penalty and, upon failure of payment of the penalty assessed by a
final order under this Section, requires the Secretary to request the Attorney
General to institute a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court
to collect the penalty.
Section 16(d) provides that any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or
(c) thereof shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than
one year, or both, for each such violation. Subsections (a), (b), and (c), re-
spectively, prohibit the knowing sponsorship or exhibition of an animal in any
animal fighting venture to which any animal was moved in interstate or foreign
commerce; the selling, buying, transporting, or delivering of a dog or other animal
for such purposes; or the use of the United States or any interstate instru-
mentality for promoting such animal fighting venture. Subsection (e) empowers
the Secretary or any other person authorized by him to make such investigation
as necessary to determine whether a violation has occurred or is in process and
permits the entering into cooperative agreements in connection with the conduct
of such investigation, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department
of Treasury, or other law enforcement agencies of the United States, as well as
state and local governmental agencies. This subsection further provides for the
issuance of a warrant to search for and seize any animal which there is probable
cause to believe was involved in any violation of this Section. Such warrants may
be issued by any judge of the United States or a United States Commissioner or
by a judge of any state court of record in the district where any animal sought
is located.
Technically, the penalty provisions seem incompatible. For example, the max-
imum civil penalty is $1,000 while the fine for criminal violations is $5,000, in
lieu of or in addition to a one year imprisonment provision. This seems high in
comparison with other penalty provisions of this Act.
Aside from any technical infirmities with the bill, the Department strongly feels
that prohibitions against dog or animal fighting ventures should be a matter of
state rather than federal law. Traditionally in our form of government the re-
sponsibility for the maintenance of law and order has been lodged with state and
local authorities, Federal jurisdiction has been for the most part restricted to
matters directly involving a function of the federal government or otherwise
beyond the normal enforcement capability of such state or local authorities.
There appears to be no sound basis for the view that federal intervention in this
area could more effectively handle such investigations or have a more deterrent
effect in preventing the type of offenses contained in H.R. 5808.

Concerning the various other provisions of the bill dealing with the humane
treatment of animals, the Department defers to the Doepartment of Agriculture.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to
the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
Assistant Attorney Gcncral.
Mr. LITTON. Mr. Chairman, I must apologize for not being present
for all of the testimony on the bill.
Did anyone in the Department of Agriculture have any recommenda-
tions or amendments to the proposal?
Mr. POAGE. I don't have anything they offered to make changes. Did
Mr. BOR. Mr. Chairman, I think the Department of Agriculture was
opposed to this bill. The CAB and the National Institute of Health
made some comments and some recommendations for changes in the
bill, and there were recommendations for changes made by some others.
One of the things that the NIH was concerned with related to the
types of animals that would be covered by the provisions of this bill.
They thought some of the smaller animals like mice and rats should
not be subject to the requirements for veterinarian inspection that ap-
plied to, say, animals like cats and dogs. Some other witnesses that
testified would add to the category of the mice and rats, animals like
guinea pigs or other types of rodents.
NIH and some other witnesses also made some suggestions as to a
change in terminology that should be provided in the certification of a
The provision that appears in the bill requires that the certifications
state the animal was sound and healthy. The recommendations by some
of the people would have changed that to read that the animal appeared
to be free of any infectious disease or physical abnormality which
would endanger the animal during transit-something like that. There
was a slight difference in wording, between some of the witnesses.
Mr. POAGE. Personally I don't see any reason in the world for keep.
ing that requirement for veterinarians' certificate on animals before
shipping. It becomes exactly the same sort of a racket that we had back
in prohibition days when, if you wanted a drink, you got a doctor's
certificate as to your bad health. And then instead of going to a boot-
legger you went to a drugstore.
What possible advantage is there going to be to it?
Mr. BERGLAND. There are all sorts of State law addressed to this
problem of interstate shipment of domestic animals, wild animals,
pets, or livestock. By and large, these States have built up their body
of law governing what they will accept on the basis of a veterinarian
inspecting animals at the point of shipment.
That places a responsibility at the shipping point to avoid spreading
disease, a basic concept.
While it is a headache to those concerned with making a shipment,
it has been found over the years to be necessary. I think we would be
striking a real blow at the States' prerogative of only allowing entrance
of livestock, or in this case pets, wild animals, on the basis of somebody
saying at the start that they are helping.


I think it is a necessary procedure. I don't think we should attempt
to take it out because we would be doing a great harm to the States
Mr. POAGE. What do you mean? If the State of Oklahoma had such
a law, would you say that the State of Oklahoma couldn't enforce that
law within their State?
Mr. BERGLAND. We make it very difficult for them because it would
become a responsibility of the State to block an interstate shipment
for not having complied with their requirements. That is extremely
difficult. The procedure we have is that the State requires the prior
inspection prior to shipment.
I think in this regard this bill only follows a procedure that has
been accepted and frankly does work even though it does place the onus
on the person or the company making the interstate shipment.
Mr. LITTON. The bill is not restricted to airlines. It is to anyone who
is in the business of hauling livestock for hire.
Mr. POAGE. This is something I want to know about this bill.
Mr. LITTON. I refer to page 3, line 8; "The term 'carrier' means the
operator of any airline, railroad, shipping line, or other enterprise,
which is engaged in the business of transporting any animals for
Then, going to page 5, on this matter of the veterinarian certificate-
line 9 states that it shall be issued "not more than 10 days before such
delivery" that the animal was found to be healthy and sound. I direct
this question to the gentleman from Montana. As you read this, would
this mean that if a person were in the business of raising livestock in
the State of North Dakota for sale through an auction ring in Minne-
sota, that livestock would have to be inspected at the ranch 10 days
before it was loaded and commissioned for sale?
Mr. BOR. If I may interject. This bill is an amendment to the Animal
Welfare Act which defines animals to exclude livestock and horses,
so that these requirements would not be applicable to livestock.
Mr. LITTON They would not be applicable to livestock or horses?
Mr. BOR. That is right. And one of the questions that did come up
during the course of testimony is that there was some testimony, first
by Congressman M[cEwen and again by representatives of the Amer-
ican Horse Association recommending that the act be applied to certain
categories of horses.
But as it now reads, it does not apply to livestock or horses.
Mr. LITTON. The testimony that was received with Mr. McEwen and
others was that certain classes of horses should be included. Did they
define those classes?
Not necessarily sporting horses to be loaded on a trailer to be brought
to an event?
Mr. BOR. Well, testimony of Mr. McEwen, I think, would have
covered those horses; whereas, the American Horse Association would
have limited the coverage to horses that would be transported for
Mr. POACF.. The bill doesn't touch either one. does it?
Mr. BOR. This bill as it now reads does not. These were additional
suggestions. Mr. McEwen had his own bill which he was testifying

Mr. HIGHTOWER. Mr. Chairman, the counsel was saying the whole
bill does not apply?
Mr. BOR. Does not apply to all horses.
As it now reads, it has no application to traveling horses.
Mr. HOGAN. There is an exemption in the existing law and the bill
doesn't change that.
Mr. BoR. This bill would amend the current statute, the current
Animal Welfare Act, and in the Animal Welfare Act they define
animals as excluding livestock and horses.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. There is a substantial amount of difference in
Mr. POAGE. That is correct. We can include any part of it or leave
it all out, if we want to, without including horses. Certain of the people
who testified wanted to include only horses that were being moved out
of the United States for slaughter, and I cannot understand what dif-
ference it makes whether you move them out for slaughter or for feed.
A horse should be protected from unnecessary cruelty while he is being
moved. But other witnesses didn't want to include any other horses
than those. Some wanted to include all horses. And this bill includes
all types.
It doesn't relate to private carriers, as I understand it.
Mr. NOLAN. The term animal as defined, Mr. Chairman, in the exist-
ing law excludes horses not used for research purposes, and other farm
animals such as, but not limited to, livestock or poultry used or in-
tended for use as food or fiber.
Mr. POAGE. I am asking for the definition of carrier. Is it limited
to common carriers? We need to know that, I think. I understand that
this relates to only common carriers.
Mr. BOR. There is a definition of the term carrier as meaning the
operator of any airline, railroad, shipping line, or other enterprise
which is engaged in the business of transporting any animals for hire.
That would include a private carrier as well as a common carrier.
Mr. POAGE. It includes everything except a person carrying his own
animals, doesn't it?
Mr. BOR. That is correct.
Mr. POAGE. That is what they are cutting out. There is no protection
in this bill for an animal that is carried in a vehicle owned and oper-
ated by the owner of the animal. In other words, if you're carrying
dogs in your own van, there's no protection.
Mr. BERGLAND. Might I ask counsel a question here?
I have been scanning this language. I'm sorry I don't understand it.
Does this seem to direct an airline terminal such as National to have
facilities of a certain type to receive these animals?
Mr. BOR. It puts a burden on the person who is delivering the animal
to the airline to provide a kind of certification.
Mr. BERGLAND. It doesn't require a central point for dogs to be held
at National or any other airport?
Mr. POAGE. The bell has rung. Before anybody leaves, may I inform
the guests that the Chair is going to try to expedite this and not have
to come back; otherwise, we might as well put this off until next week
or next month or some other time. The Chair would request that all
members stay. If the members will stay, we will try to move it. If the


members won't come back, we will move it to another time. If we let
this thing drag another few weeks, you are going to take another 2
weeks catching up on it.
Mr. BERGLAND. This may be the last question. Maybe nobody else
has a question.
Mr. BOR. One of the provisions in the bill would require the Secre-
tary to establish standards for places like National Airport and for
other carriers to establish facilities with respect to containers, feed,
water, rest, ventilation, temperature, handling, adequate veterinary
care, and other things to assure humane treatment of animals.
Mr. POAGE. We will have to go to the rollcall now. I hope you will
come back, because I think it will save everybody time.
There are several questions that have to be decided one way or an-
other, such as: whether you want to include horses in the bill; do you
want to require certification of all animals being held; do you want to
put requirements on the common carriers.
[Short recess taken.]
[Following the recess, a quorum was not present.]
Mr. POAGE. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in
the morning.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the meeting adjourned.]



Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. WV. R. Poage (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Melcher, Bergland, Weaver, Bedell, Eng-
lish, Hagedorn.
Staff present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; Hyde H. Murray, counsel;
John E. Hogan, associate counsel; Anita Brown, staff assistant.
Mr. POAGE. The subcommittee will come to order.
We are here today to consider legislation to amend the act of August
24, 1966, for purposes of prohibiting the shipment in interstate com-
merce of dogs intended to be used to fight other dogs for purposes of
sport, wagering, or entertainment.
We are here today, further, to consider legislation to amend the act
of August 24, 1966, to assure humane treatment of certain animals.
We are here today, further, to consider legislation to authorize the
Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the transportation of horses in
And we are here today, further, to consider legislation to amend the
Federal law relating to the care and treatment of animals, to broaden
the categories of persons regulated under such law, to assure that birds
in pet stores and zoos are protected, and to increase protection for
animals in transit.
Would the Clerk please inform the Chair as to whether or not a
quorum is present.
The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, a quorum is not present at this time.
Mr. POAGE. The Chair recognizes the fact that we do not have a
quorum present at this time.
I think that we will recess the subcommittee meeting for a few min-
utes to see if a quorum develops.
Is there any objection?
[No response.]
Mr. POAGE. Hearing no objection, the subcommittee will stand in
recess for the next few minutes.
We will see what developed. In the meantime, we can examine this
legislation to familiarize those members who are present at this time
with the form and substance of these bills.


I have some questions of counsel at this time. Let us stand in recess.
[Whereupon, a short recess was taken, during which an off-the-rec-
ord discussion ensued.]
Mr. POAGE. The subcommittee will come to order.
The Chair believes that it would be advisable to meet again as soon
as possible to consider these bills that have come before us.
In that event, it has been suggested that we meet on Wednesday,
September 17, 1975, to consider these bills.
Is there any objection?
[No response.]
Mr. POAGE. Hearing no response, we will set the date of Septem-
ber 17,1975, next Wednesday, at 10 a.m. for a meeting of this subcom-
mittee to give further consideration to these bills that are before us.
I would urge all members of the subcommittee to attend so that we
can deal with this legislation.
The subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned until Septem-
ber 17, 1975, at 10 a.m.]



Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room
1301 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. William R. Poage
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representative Hightower.
Staff present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; Hyde H. Murray, counsel;
John E. Hogan. associate counsel; John Baize, staff consultant, Sub-
committee on Livestock and Grains; Anita Brown, staff assistant.
Mr. POAGE. The subcommittee will please come to order.
It was our hope this morning that we might have enough of the
members to justify consideration of legislation upon which we recently
held hearings. While we have quality here, I am afraid that we don't
have enough of the members present in order to proceed. If we do
not hold a discussion this morning, I do not know when we can have
The full committee has its own hearings, and there does not seem to
be the time, within the next week or two, to dispose of this bill.
I would like very much to do it now, but it seems that we are hav-
ing difficulty getting members to attend.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Is there a meeting of the full committee scheduled
for 2 o'clock this afternoon?
Mr. POAGE. No.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I thought that there was.
Mr. POAGE. The Chair is willing to set a hearing at any time: at
night or any time.
I must confess that I am getting a little tired of coming up here
day after day without having one.
If there is no prospect of a quorum, then we will adjourn the meet-
ing until we can get a quorum.
The subcommittee in adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee adjourned at 10:10 a.m.]


Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. William R. Poage (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Melcher, Bergland, Weaver, Harkin,
Hightower, Sebelius.
Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; John E. Hogan,
associate counsel; John Baize, staff consultant, Subcommittee on
Livestock and Grains; Peggy Pecore and Wanda Worsham, staff
Mr. POAGE. The subcommittee will be in order.
We have waited 15 minutes and have six members and the chairman.
We need 10 for a quorum. I know nothing else to do except to post-
pone these hearings until a future date.
If the members of this subcommittee are decided that they want to
pass this bill, then I will try to hold hearings to give them the oppor-
tunity; but if they want to kill the bill by absenteeism, then that is
also their privilege.
The subcommittee will meet when it looks like we can get a quorum.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I will do what I can to get my troops out.
Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to set a date?
Mr. POAGE. I am not going to set a date until the Chair has some
understanding that we are going to have a quorum. Any time that
I can get the understanding that we will have a quorum, then I will
call it. It is just frustrating to call these meetings. This is the third
time that we have tried to consider this bill, and it is the third time
that the members have not attended.
Frankly, I think that some of the members want to kill the bill
without voting against it. That is the easiest way in the world of
doing it.
The subcommittee is adjourned and will meet when we can get the
assurance of a quorum.
[Whereupon, at 10:17 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned.]



Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room
1301, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Melcher, Bergland, Litton, Nolan,
Weaver, Hightower, Bedell, English, Fithian, D'Amours, Sebelius,
Thone, Symms, and Hagedorn.
Staff present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; John E. Hogan, associate
counsel; John Baize, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Livestock and
Grains; L. T. Easley, press assistant; Wanda Worsham, staff assistant.
Mr. POAGE. The subcommittee will please come to order.
The Chair notes there is not a quorum but I think it is obvious we
will have a quorum in a few moments. I thought we had better begin
to consider the matters before us inasmuch as time is limited. Of course,
we can take no formal action until we get more members.
The staff has prepared a section-by-section comment memorandum.
Mr. BERGLAND. Might I suggest we do go over this section by section
and ask the staff to refresh our memories on suggested changes rec-
ommended by the various groups. Frankly, I have forgotten some of
these because the hearings were held so long ago. This at least would
be of help to this member, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. We shall just proceed that way, then.
Mr. Bor, would you like to proceed section by section with us?
Let us see whether we can approve or disapprove these sections.
Unless there is objection on the part of some members we can ap-
prove sections, and those where there is question we can come back
and discuss them.
Mr. BOR. Mr. Chairman, before we get started you might want to
consider a couple suggestions that were made which apply generally
throughout the bill. Those suggestions relate to additional categories
of animals which have been suggested for coverage.
I think at one time there was an indication by those present that
they wanted to leave the bill intact in terms of the coverage. However,
one of the things which had been mentioned at the hearings was the
question of whether horses should be covered by the bill, particularly
horses which are transported for slaughter.

79-917 0- 76- 3


Mr. POAGE. That is one of the issues we have to decide. However, I
had thought we would save time by going through this, going through
everything we agree on, and then discussing matters about which
there is question. Of course, transportation of horses is one of those
Mr. BOr. The first section of the bill contains the title of the bill.
The second section sets out the findings for the inclusion of addi-
tional provisions in the Animal Welfare Act. To my knowledge there
has been no suggest ion to change this section.
AMr. POAGE. I want again to point out as far as I am concerned I do
not believe in these findings, not on this bill but for any bill, I do
not think we should put a political platform in legislation.
I realize findings are for the purpose of justifying some of the legis-
lation. Perhaps it is the only way we can do it. However, we have
adopted a practice of writing political platforms into the law and to
me it makes no sense because there is no justification for it.
Would it weaken this bill if we left out these findings? Findings are
nothing more than somebody's viewpoint and somebody's reason. The
reasons may be perfectly sound, but just to put reasoning and view-
points into the statute does not seem to me to be a good way to
Mr. BERGLAND. That would suggest we strike section 2 from the bill.
MI'. POAGE. I am asking the lawyers whether if we struck section 2
from the bill it would in any way invalidate the bill.
Mr. BOR. The purpose of the finding is to try to tie in what follows
with the commerce clause of the Constitution to indicate that what's
being done is a matter over which Congress has proper jurisdiction
and not a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the States.
Mr. POAGE. However, if the facts stated in the findings are true, and
I am not challenging them in this case though sometimes they are not,
and we all know it, then you do have jurisdiction. The mere fact we
state these are the facts does not change our jurisdiction. It is simply-
something to try to make it more palatable to the public, as I see it.
Mr. THONE. In section 2 it states "It is also essential to prohibit cer-
tain animal fighting ventures."
Is that one of the main thrusts of this bill?
Mr. BOR. The last part of the bill deals with animal fighting. The
findings you refer to try to tie in the controls against animal fighting
ventures with the commerce clause of the Constitution. I think that is
the main reason for it.
Mr. THONE. Has section 2 been revised as it is printed in H.R. 9217?
Mr. HOGAN. No, sir I do not believe so. I have not read them line by
line but they should be identical.
Mr. BOR. It is the same in H.R. 9217 on that particular feature.
Mr'. POAGE. Is this essential to the validity of the rest of the bill?
I don't see how you can change facts by merely making a declaration
here. The facts are one way or the other. If they are as you set them
out, that we have jurisdiction, then there is no problem. If they are
not we would not change the facts by declaring something to be a fact
which is not.
Mr. BOR. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the problems is that the
findings as they are contained in the current version of the Animal

Welfare Act, are related just to the items which are now in that act,
and if the findings are not changed by H.R. 9217, then if the bill be-
comes law the act will be out of balance because you have some find-
ings which are addressed only to certain provisions of the act and not
to other provisions of the act. This might cause a question with regard
to provisions we are adding.
Perhaps there would not have been a problem if we had no findings
in the act to begin with, but when you have findings in the act which
relate just to a portion of the act it may raise a question as to whether
there is a proper basis for Congress taking action on the balance.
Mr. POAGE. Would you answer my basic question? Can we confer
jurisdiction on the Federal Government simply by making findings?
Does not the right of the Congress to legislate depend upon the facts
and not upon the findings?
Mr. BOR. You are certainly correct, Mr. Chairman. It is just that
when the issue comes up before the courts it is easier to resolve if Con-
gress has made a specific finding than if Congress had not acted on
the matter. This tends to avoid questions as to whether this is a matter
related to the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
Mr. POAGE. If we adopt the practice, and we are coming mighty close
to it, of putting arguments into the statute-we will confuse our laws
to such an extent that we should all go out and practice law. It will be-
come the busiest profession in the country.
Mr. D'AMOURS. Do I understand you are saying that if we do not
include these findings that at some future date, if this law is chal-
lenged, some Federal court might, in fact, substitute its judgment for
ours and throw out everything we are working on to put into the act
Mr. BOR. There is that possibility because the finding which is now
in the act states that certain provisions are tied in with the commerce
clause of the Constitution. If we do not have any findings which cover
the new provisions added by H.R. 9217 then we will have an act which
states certain portions are tied in with the commerce clause but not
other portions.
Therefore, if the issue comes before the court someone might say,
"Well, this property is not a matter covered by the commerce clause."
That is the only reason for this.
Mr. POAGE. If the gentleman would yield, that cannot be right, Mr.
Bor. The mere fact that Congress has found that this involves inter-
state commerce does not make it a fact. The validity of the law de-
pends upon the facts regardless of what we found the facts to be.
We cannot change the facts. We cannot by writing a finding here
which is contrary to the facts change the right of the Federal Govern-
ment. We cannot add to it nor take from it simply by declaring that
hot water is cold.
Mr. WEAVER. I agree with you. I would like to vote on this. I move
the question.
Mr. D'AMouIs. What I am concerned about, if I understand coun-
sel correctly, Mr. Chairman, is that you are saying we cannot change
facts by merely saying they do or do not exist. On the other hand,
neither can the courts. If we do not say it they may decide that if we
feel we don't have that power they might decide they do and they can


throw out everything we are doing here today simply by making that
Whereas, if we state these to be our findings I think we are in fact
making it at least very difficult for a court at some later date to say it
will find contrary to us.
Mr. POAGE. We are putting the argument in the record.
Mr. D'AMouRs. I think it is more than an argument, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is a congressional finding. If it involves facts, as you suggest,
I don't think courts are usually empowered to make decisions of fact
and thereby overrule those facts with what Congress has found.
I am afraid without this language we might be making all the work
we are doing here today much more ephemeral.
Mr. POAGE. Suppose Congress made a finding that the Mississippi
River were an intermittent stream. That would not change the fact,
would it?
Mr. D'AMoURs. I do not think Congress would do that as a matter
of finding in legislation. If they did it would not change the fact but
it would at least make it more difficult for a court to find it was not an
intermittent stream.
Mr. POAGE. That is the whole purpose of this. This is the whole pur-
pose of the whole philosophy.
I have raised this point on many bills and not simply this one. I
have raised this point many times before. I think it is an utterly un-
sound practice to put your arguments into the statute.
The statute should simply state what the law is and not why we
should have this law. It should state what the law is.
If you write arguments into the law then you simply add to the con-
fusion, I think.
Mr. D'AMOURS. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, but I would rather
have Congress state this rather than the courts.
Mr. POAGE. You cannot take that power away from the courts. Some-
times I wish we could but I do not think we can take that power away'
from the courts.
Mr. WEAVER. I move to strike section 2.
Mr. POAGE. You have heard the motion. Is there any discussion of
Mr. SEBELIUS. Do I have it?
Mr. POAGE. Yes.
Mr. BERGLAND. Are we working from H.R. 9217?
Mr. POAGE. I think so.
Mr. HOGAN. I wonder whether we can inquire of the counsel from
the Department, who is present here, whether any question has arisen,
or any court case has been decided with respect to the interstate com-
merce clause as it might relate to the general policy finding in the
previous enactment?
Mr. POAGE. Certainly we might inquire.
Ms. PROKOP. There are provisions in the present act which are in
terms of certain transactions "affecting commerce." We have not been
challenged yet so far as I know, but wherever we try to enforce the
present act against a dealer or an exhibitor with regard to a transaction
which is in intrastate commerce, presently if the issue were raised we
would have to show that this particular transaction did have an effect,
direct or substantial-


Mr. POAGE. No; you do not have to show that. The presumption is
that the law Congress passed is constitutional. The burden falis upon
anybody who challenges it.
Ms. PROKOP. Sir, I think it is because of the way the present act is
worded. It defines a dealer. For example, a research facility is any
school or institution that purc'lm:-es or transports live animals affecting
commerce. Then "affecting commerce" means in commerce, burdening,
obstructing, or substantially affecting commerce, and some other
Mr. POAGE. And we do not repeal that.
Ms. PROKOP. No, sir, but this bill would repeal that language affect-
ing commerce so we would not, in dealing with the reseairchli facility,
have to say, "We have evidence that what you are doing does burden,
obstruct, or substantially affect commerce." We would not have to
prove the facts in each case. Instead we would be in a position of
relying, under the bill, on the congressional determination of fact
that all their transactions do burden or affect commerce.
Mr. POAGE. There is a presumption in everything Congress does
that it is constitutional.
Mr. MELCHER. Counsel is getting into section 3. Is that right?
Ms. PROKOP. Sections 2 and 3 are related.
Mr. MELCHER. I dare say when we get into the jungle as to what is
commerce and what is not commerce, anything that mentions the word
is related.
The motion before us is with regard to deleting section 2. The actual
term of "affecting commerce" comes up in section 3.
Mr. Chairman, these are technical definitions that lawyers delight
in arguing about. I simply do not have the time as one member of
this subcommittee to get bogged down in these technical arguments.
I want to help in protecting this bill but I do not want to partici-
pate in these long discussions on what commerce is. I really want to
Mr. POAGE. All those in favor of striking out section 2 will hold
up their hands.
Now those opposed.
The CLERK. Six ayes, three nays.
Mr. POAGE. Very well.
Mr. BERGLAND. Put me on the "no" side so there is a quorum re-
corded on this vote.
Mr. POAGE. All right, six ayes and four nays.
A quorum being present the amendment is adopted and section 2
will be stricken.
Let's go to section 3.
Mr. WEAVER. I move to strike section 3.
Mr. MELCHER. I would like to speak to that. If the intent of the
Department is to regulate the handling of pets and other animals
within a State, regardless of the State, and that is what section 3 seems
to do, regardless of what the State laws might be, this seems to be
the enforcing authority.
Ms. PROKOP. If I might interject something. I ought to make it clear
that I am here only in the capacity of providing whatever technical
advice or drafting service I can. The Department, as I understand it,
is not advocating enactment of the bill.


Mr. POAGE. We understand the Department is not advocating the
bill or opposing the bill. We understood you were here to give us the
law and not their arguments.
Ms. PROKOP. That is right.
M1r. POAGE. Mr. Melcher raises a question with regard to section
(c). On its face it seems to attempt to take control over intrastate
commerce, over which we have no constitutional right.
Mr. BOR. I think when you read this in the context of the finding
that the regulation of activities within the State is tied in with inter-
state commerce because of the impact it would have on interstate
The effect of section 3 of the bill is to change the terminology which
is now in the act so it would cover commerce within a State and not
merely between States.
Mr. POAGE. How can we assume jurisdiction of commerce within
the State? What constitutional authority do we have to regulate
intrastate commerce?
IMs. PROKOP. As I mentioned, in my thinking section 3 would not be
sustainable without section 2 because it does have the effect of further
involving the bill and regulating intrastate activities, and there would
be a basis for doing that in the Constitution only if the particular
activity burdened or affected interstate or foreign commerce.
Mr. POAGE. This Congress has no more authority to control intra-
state commerce than it has to control the making of bread in your
Ms. PROKOP. As you know, there are many statutes, such as the
Meat Inspection Act, which do regulate intrastate activities.
Mr. POAGE. I think that is true and we do it on the theory it involves
interstate commerce. We do it on the theory that all of this affects
interstate commerce.
Ms. PROKOP. It does.
Mr. POAGE. But apparently we are coming here and defining it as
anything that is within the State regardless of whether it affects inter-
state commerce or not.
Ms. PROKOP. It seems to me that without section 2 it would be just
as well to drop section 3 because I think they are related.
Mr. POAGE. The gentleman from Montana moves to strike that out?
Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Weaver did but I would support the motion.
Mr. POAGE. The motion is before us to strike section 3.
Further discussion?
If not, those in favor signify by raising your hands.
The CLERK. Seven ayes, one nay.
Mr. POAGE. Seven ayes, one nay.
Next we come to section 4.
Mr. BoR. Section 4 of the bill is also tied in with the same matter,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. Do you think it ought to come out?
Mr. BoR. To be logical, I am not siggzcting it, sir, but having taken
the action you have on sections 2 and 3, it would appear section 4
should likewise be deleted.
Mr. POAGE. It seems to me this clearly includes the term.
Mr. WEAVER. I move to strike section 4, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. POAGE. All those in favor say aye; opposed?
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it.
Mr. BERGLAND. If I might inquire of counsel, on the mimeograph
sheets which have been prepared describing the sections and carrying
recommended changes offered by various groups, are these part of
the original act which this section 4 in the bill would affect?
Mr. BOR. That is right. Section 4 amends those sections of the origi-
nal act.
Mr. BERGLAND. Only those functions which would be regulated by
the application of the intrastate con .merce. provision which has been
stricken from the bill?
Mr. HOGAN. The mimeographed statement was put together so that
when you went through this, if you had questions about what you were
amending in each of these sections of the existing law. section 2, :ec-
tion 4, section 11, and section 12, you would know generally what they
referred to.
Sections 2 (e) and (f) and section 4 are a general definition of
what's included in those particular sections of the existing law.
Mr. BERGLAXD. All right. Section 4 of the bill would restrict its
authority only to that recor(dkeeping in intrastate commerce?
Mr. HOGAN. It would be in interstate commerce. The thought was
it would be in interstate commerce as heretofore defined in sections
2 and 3. Therefore, I think this section 4 now has to be amended to
reflect what you have done in the preceding sections. You have already
stricken section 4.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I was thinking of section 2 of this bill rather than
the act. In section 4 all we have changed is "affecting commerce" to
say "in commerce." We are saying "intended to be moved in com-
merce." I don't know whether I have gone too far in section 4 or not.
Mr. BOR. The reason for the change in section 4 is that the term
"in commerce" was redefined in the previous section so that by redefin-
ing it you covered a larger area than previously was the case. That
was the main reason for the change.
Mr. SEBELIUS. But are we adding to intrastate commerce by saying
it is part of the overall flow of commerce, and, therefore, legislating
it to become interstate commerce when in fact it is intrastate as de-
fined in the old act?
Mr. BoR. The nation you have taken would be to leave intact the
approach which was under the old act and not to cover additional
areas which would be purely within the State, commerce within the
Mr. SEBELIUS. So we are at that juncture of whether we decide
philosophically we want to extend this act to hook up intrastate
commerce more firmly.
Mr. POAGE. It makes no difference what we want to do. We cannot
affect intrastate commerce. We can only control interstate commerce.
It makes no difference whether we write something in an attempt to
control intrastate commerce. It would be voided. We should avoid
writing that kind of legislation. We ought to make our legislation
constitutional when we bring it out.
Mr. BERGLAND. Is there any preemptive precedence in this regard?
Mr. SEBELIUS. I practice law in a small town in western Kansas.
If I found that some of the filling stations and hospitals, by reason


of definition of an act of Congress, came under wages and hours, a
person cleaning up a room in a hospital was involved in interstate
commerce by reason of what the legislature did, and it involved them
in wages and hours-
Mr. HOGAN. The bill you are considering on the floor affects certain
activities within interstate commerce. Obviously the State plans which
are submitted are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. POAGE. It seems to me we want to confine this thing to inter-
state commerce, over which we have control, rather than writing some-
thing over which we do not have control. We have now eliminated sec-
tion 4. Unless somebody wants to go back we shall pass it.
Section 5 involves additional definitions. This seems to involve
applying Federal law in intrastate transactions. Now we are taking
up something which again is to involve Federal jurisdiction.
Let's hear comments on section 5.
Mr. BOR. Section 5 defines two terms-one is "intermediate han-
dler" and the other is the term "carrier." The reason for the definition
is because this act brings these persons under the regulatory provi-
sions of the act.
Later on in section 10 it provides that an animal shall not be deliv-
ered to any intermediate handler or carrier for transportation in com-
merce or received by any handler or carrier unless it is accompanied
by a certificate issued by a veterinarian.
It also has other types of provisions relating to intermediate car-
riers and handlers. That is the reason for the definition.
In the definition of the term "carrier", the Interstate Commerce
Commission made a recommendation for a change. They would sug-
gest the addition of the words "motor carrier" to make it abundantly
clear that that is covered by the definition.
Mr. POAGE. I don't think there is any more need to say "motor car-
rier" than "wheelbarrows." If there is no objection to including the
term "motor carrier" we shall include the term "motor carrier."
The Chair hears no objection so it will be included.
Mr. BEDELIL. I presume we have to mark off "further" in the section.
Section 5 states "further amended".
Mr. POAGE. Yes, the word "further" should be stricken.
This is purely technical drafting. If there is no objection the staff
will be empowered to write proper language there.
The Chair hears none and the staff will write proper language to
make it fit the amendments adopted.
Mr. BERGLAN D. We have not yet disposed of section 5, have we?
Mr. POAGE. No.
Mr. BERGLA.XD. I have a question on "intermediate handler." I can-
not understand what the Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences has
suggested. In lay terms what are they saying?
Mr. HOGAN. They were not particularly explicit in their statement.
They filed a statement and did not testify. They did not embellish on
their statement for the record.
However, in a telephone call they indicated they were concerned
that the term was too broad and would include within the term
"intermediate handlers" individuals whom they felt might be covered
by other agencies or those the committee might not in its due con-
sideration want to include.


I think the American Transportation Association also had some
concern about this particular provision, as to whether it would include
transportation companies which would deliver and pick up animals.
I think the term as it is now included in the amendment does
state it broadly and would include such things as air transportation
companies. In other words, if they had an animal within their con-
trol at an airport, in effect they would be ani intermediate handler
and would have to comply with provisions of this bill and regulations
of the Department of Agriculture which apply to intermediate
It would be conjecture as to exactly what those provisions might be
if this bill passed. Regulations obviously will be issued by the Secre-
tary of Agriculture, and presumably at that time these objectors could
have an opportunity to comment on them.
Mr. MELCHER. In regard to the carrier, he will be subject to regula-
tions under (j) under any circumstances. Is it not a question of
whether they might be subject to overlapping regulations, (1) as a
carrier and (2) as intermediate handlers?
Mr. HOGAN. In effect that is part of their objection.
Mr. MELCHIER. I do not think the Department would have any
problem, would they ?
Mr. HOGAN. The committee could put language in the report ac-
companying the bill that it did not wish to have this be unduly burden-
some where a particular entity, such as an airline company, might be
subject to the regulations as a carrier and also might be subject to
regulations as an intermediate handlers.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I would like to ask about section (j). We added the
words "motor carrier", engaged in the business of transporting
animals for hire.
Don't we have animals defined in this act?
Mr. BOR. Yes. The term "any animal" would have to be read in
context with the definition of "animal" in the act.
There is a specific exemption in the definition for livestock and
poultry as well as horses not used for research purposes.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I wanted that especially clarified for me. We wind up
on motor carriers hauling cattle
Mr. BOR. This would not do that.
Mr. POAGCE. If there is no further discussion
Mr. BERGLAND. I see a mimeographed amendment to section 5 dis-
tributed. What is this?
Mr. HOGAN. This is an amendment which the committee discussed.
There was a question in the course of the testimony as to whether
they wanted to redefine the term "handler" as it is now defined in the
existing law, in effect delete it and restate it, as it now appears before
There was particularly some concern about the question of whether
or not you wanted to cover dogs for hunting or security. Those words
are added here in line 5 of this restated definition of "dealer".
Mr. POAGE. This is a proposed amendment to section 5 of H.R. 5808.
We are reading from H.R. 9217.
Mr. BOR. These bills are identical, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. The section we are working on relates to the definition
of intermediate carrier and the term "carrier."


What you are proposing in this amendment is the term "dealer"
as well as pet stores.
Mr. BOR. There are two matters brought to the forefront in the
mimeographed sheet that was passed around. One is that it brings to
the attention of the subcommittee the question of whether you wish
to cover under the act these additional categories of dogs which are
not now covered under the act.
There was testimony which was received during the hearings from
some people who asked for enlargement of the category of dogs to
include hunting, security, and breeding dogs.
The other part of this is a matter which had been brought to the
attention of the staff by Mrs. Prokop, attorney in the Department of
Agriculture, which takes care of some technical problems they have
had in the administration of the act and it is designed for the purpose
of clarification.
You might wish to hear comments on this particular paragraph.
Mr. POAGE. I think the Chair has said we do not wish to get back
into hearings on this thing. We are trying our best to move. If we go
back into hearings we will never get this bill out.
We want to hear the explanation of the attorneys but the Chair
will not turn anything off if the members want to hear it. However, I
do not feel we will get anywhere if we hear witnesses again.
Mr. BERGLAND. I agree, but I am confused here.
Does counsel have a copy of H.R. 5808? Is it the same as the text
from which we have been working? Is it the same as 9217? Are the
line references and page references the same?
Mr. HOGAN. Yes, sir. The hearing was held on H.R. 5808. That is
the bill on which the hearing was held and testimony was received.
What you have before you apparently is the same bill reintroduced
with new cosponsors, a bill which I think is identical line for line. I
have not proofread it.
Mr. POAGE. If it is word for word the same I see no reason to dis-
cuss another bill. We ought to stay with the bill on which we had
Mr. HOGAN. Yes, sir. The bill on which you had hearings is the one
to which the amendment, if you wish to consider it, is before you.
If not we can move on.
Mr. POAGE. What it does is to add to section 5.
You do not show you are adding to it here. As this amendment is
written it seems to me you are striking out everything that is in
section 5. You do not say you are striking it out but you rewrite
section 5 and make no reference to the things that are in the existing
bill. I take it you intend to leave them in?
Mr. HOGAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. What you are doing, then, is to add to. In other words,
at line 10. after period on line 10, you are adding the following. Is
that what it amounts to?
Mr. HOGAN. Actually it would appear ultimately, unless you intro-
duce a new bill, as a new subsection. It would appear under section 5,
pa q.e 2, line 24.
Mr. POAGE. And then you would add the language in the printed
bill to this

Mr. HOGAN. You would add to the language on the printed bill,
where the colon on line 24, page 2 appears, that language which is an
amendment to the definitional part of the existing law, subsection
2(f), and subsection 2(i) appears on page 3, line 1.
Mr. SEBELIUS. We need the language, then. Paragraph (f) of section
2 is the act we are dealing with. We are amending that by this bill and
we need to know what amendment we are making and what we are
getting rid of in the definition of "dealer" and these exceptions.
Mr. HOGAN. What you are adding basically is the language which is
contained here "for hunting, security, and breeding purposes" just
after the word "pet".
Mr. SEBELIUS. You are making three exceptions-retail pet stores,
whether they can sell so many, and value under $500.
Mr. HOGAN. And, as majority counsel has indicated, the Counsel for
the Department has some additional reasons as to why they believe this
could be restated as it is here.
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Hogan, we don't want reasons unless there is objec-
tion to it. If the committee should approve it we do not want to waste
our time going over why we should approve it. If there is no objection
to it why not accept it?
Does anybody object to this? We did go over these things. Is there
any objection to adding the language of 10 percent here given us by
Mr. MELCHER. When you get into making a determination of whether
somebody has three female dogs or three female cats, or both, and you
have no more than four hunters, when you put that into statutory lan-
guage you are really cluttering up our books with a lot of detail.
I am sure the language is well-intentioned, but I hesitate to be part
of a legislative process where we put into the statute such a mandate
for determining what facts can determine.
Mr. POAGE. If you do not put something of this kind here then we
have included every family where the kid sells a puppy or something
of that kind and you have made them a dealer. Obviously we do not
want to do this.
Therefore, we have to use some kind of definition to eliminate that
kid who has a puppy for sale as a dealer.
They have put this in here as a benchmark. They can go beyond this
but then become dealers. This leaves the Department with a free hand
Mr. MELCHER. Then I would suggest that the exemption, the retail
store exemption I am sure is necessary. Counsel will advise us as to that.
However, when we get to 2, if we leave it to the discretion of the
Department, why don't we say in 2, "any person who does not sell or
negotiate the purchase or sale of any animal other than dogs and cats"
and put in a clause which says "in commerce." That then does leave
it to the Department as to how much they will regulate.
Mr. POAGE. The trouble is that you have already defined commerce in
such a way this does affect commerce.
Mr. MELCHER. Significantly affects commerce.
Mr. POAGE. Does it not make more sense to have a cutoff figure rather
than saying "significantly" ? The justice of the peace in one county will
decide one thing and the Supreme Court will decide something else.


Mr. MELCIIER. If we want to include the finding of who owns no more
than three female dogs or cats, or both, I dare say if that is the statutory
language somebody can go to court and force the Department to show
all their records to show how they determine who owns three cats, dogs,
or both. I know they will not do that. It is possible, however.
Mr. POAGE. It simply gives the defendant, if the Department were
to prosecute some kid for selling a dog-
Mr. BERGLAND. I think the gentleman from Texas makes a valid
point. My boy, Billy, bought a nice Persian kitten last week from a
neighbor. I don't want the pets involved in that transaction.
If we do not adopt paragraph 2 it means we will put the Feds in the
business of inspecting Billy's cat.
Mr. POAGE. If your boy were accused of violating the law he would
have a perfect defense by saying he bought it from somebody who did
not sell more than three during the year.
Mr. BERGLAND. He didn't.
Mr. POAGE. If you say "significantly affect interstate commerce" the
sale of a high-priced animal might be affected and the sale of an ordi-
nary kitten might not. Who is to determine that effect on interstate
commerce? It seems to me this is more exact than when you say "sig-
nificantly affect commerce."
You might want to say a dozen sales rather than three. You might
want to say something else. However, it seems to me you have to have a
benchmark in there.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I have raised hundreds of cats and dogs in the
process of raising my children. We have given them away, sold them,
and I would have to have to count the number of litters in any par-
ticular year.
Can we substitute language such as this-not engaged in the business
for profit and breeding.
Mr. POAGE. Nobody ever admits he is engaged in that business.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I think there are certain standards. If you are going
to have a pet store you have to have a store license. You need an internal
revenue number, and such as this. If we are going to get involved in
counting cats and dogs, I could not agree with Mr. Melcher more. I
don't think we ought to put in any kinds of numbers. Let's say other
than cats and dogs, and not engaged in the business for profit, or some-
thing like that. We have people everywhere who have pets they want
to get rid of and I don't want them directly or indirectly involved.
Mr. MELCHER. I think the gentleman from Kansas has offered this.
As far as Mr. Billy Bergland is concerned, the Feds would not be
looking at Billy but they would be looking at the mother of the
Persian kitten and the owner of that mother. Billy is home free.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. And there are kittens involved there.
Mr. MELCIIER. I want to see the effect.
Mr. POAGE. Then there is no defense.
Mr. BERGLAND. Except if we struck 2 and accept 3 the definition
would fall on the gross volume of business done. It would exempt all
transactions under $500. Is that right? It would not get down to the
business of trying to count litters.
Mr. BEDELL. Is the reason we excluded all pet stores-if there is
that finding I don't want to prolong it. Pet stores are excluded?

Mr. HOGAN. That is the existing law.
Mr. BEDELL. Is that the desire, that this be done?
Mr. POAGE. Yes.
Mr. BERGLAND. I move this amendment be adopted except paragraph
2 of the amendment be stricken.
Mr. POAGE. All those in favor of striking paragraph 2 of the amend-
ment say aye; those opposed?
It is unanimously carried. Paragraph 2 is stricken.
Now Mr. Bergland moves
Mr. BERGLAND. I move the amended be approved.
Mr. POAGE. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none.
Without objection it will be added to the bill.
Let's move on.
Mr. MELCHER. I have looked over section 6, Mr. Chairman.
I think with a little help from the staff it makes it clear we do have
to use the term "every carrier" because there would not be a definition
of supplemental carriers, and so on. Is that right?
Mr. HOGAN. As I understand it, the CAB does not have any juris-
diction over unscheduled carriers.
Mr. MELCHER. All right.
Mr. HOGAN. The language we have here would take care of that.
Mr. MELCHER. We do not have the act before us. What that section
of the act states, I suppose, that a registration of the various people
affected by the act subject to the regulations shall
Mr. HOGAN. Shall register with the Secretary.
Mr. MELCHER. I suggest we move along from section 6.
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Melcher moves approval of section 6.
Is there objection ?
The Chair hears none. Section 6 is approved.
Next is section 7. Are there any comments?
Mr. HOGAN. These are just general comments which were made. I do
not think they are matters which
Mr. POAGE. Is there objection to section 7? The Chair hears none.
Section 7 is approved.
Next is section 8.
Mr. BERGLAND. This is an area where there has been objection raised
by persons affected. The argument is that the recordkeeping provi-
sions of this section are unduly onerous.
Mr. POAGE. In keeping with usual governmental procedure.
Mr. BERGLAND. That is right.
Mr. MELCHER. I have some sympathy for the carriers' objections to
this. Inasmuch as they have to do all this for the CAB and record-
keeping is an extremely costly function of both business and Govern-
ment, I see no reason to force onto the air carriers duplication of the
recordkeeping. I certainly hope we would adopt language which will
permit the existing situation to continue and that Agriculture will not
force new forms of these people and require them to file the forms with
Mr. BOR. Mr. Melcher, I think one of the problems which was raised
during the hearing was that CAB felt it did not have sufficient juris-
diction over this area, and the types of records which would be kept by


the Department of Agriculture would be different types of records
than the types of records which the CAB might require of the sched-
uled airlines.
We might wish to consider that the Department would consult with
these other agencies before it requires records or proposes record-
keeping requirements.
The records which other agencies require are records which are
addressed to the regulatory activities within the scope of their au-
thority, and they do not get into the problem we have here.
Mr. POAGE. In other words, one requires records to be kept with
green ink and the other with blue ink, so you need two different sets.
Mr. MELCHER. You have the air bill, whatever is necessary to include
on that air bill to carry out the purpose of this act, and that can be
done rather than having a separate form which also will be necessary,
issued by Agriculture, which has to be filled out by the carrier as well.
I see no reason why we cannot require under the terms of the act
that whatever is necessary be incorporated into the air bill.
Mr. SYM iMS. What does this mean if you want to ship your dog from
Montana to Washington, D.C.?
Mr. MELCHER. It means in about a year from now or maybe 2 years-
it will take that long to develop the regulations and get out the forms-
you will find another form which has to be filled out at the time you
purchase a ticket, and there will be two forms-one for the CAB and
one for the Department of Agriculture.
What I am suggesting is that we make sure in the legislation there
is only one form. I see no harm in incorporating whatever is necessary
in the air bill.
Mr. SYmms. What is wrong with the way it is now?
Mr. MELCHER. The way it is now will be changed after we enact
this and there will be more requirements.
This particular section also indicates "intermediate handlers and
carriers shall make and retain for such reasonable periods of time as
the Secretary may prescribe such records with respect to the transpor-
tation, receiving, handling, et cetera."
What commonly happens, at least in my experience, is that the De-
partment is mandated to get out a separate set of forms which will be
filled out, which will be initiated when you put your dog on the air-
plane, and those records will be made up in a prescribed way to show
you are carrying out the intent of this act.
All I suggest is that we do not make a separate form necessary, but
whatever is necessary to carry out this provision is done in one form.
Mr. BERGLAND. Someone has suggested language which would ac-
complish what we all seek to achieve. It is included at the bottom of
page 4 of the mimeographed print-adding on page 4 the following
"after consultation with any other Federal agency sharing regulatory
jurisdiction over such handlers and carriers."
Mr. MELCHER. Is that counsel's recommended compromise?
Mr. HOGAN. It is a compromise offered.
Mr. MELCHER. I don't think it is a compromise. All that means is
that they will talk to the CAB and then they will get out their own
Mr. BOR. Would a combination of that and language which might
state that to the extent practicable the information shall be provided


on existing forms which are required to be provided by these other
regulatory agencies?
Mr. POAGE. It will not give you relief. With all due respect to the
Department of Agriculture it is not any worse than any of the rest
of the agencies but nothing is practical if some other agency did it.
The same thing is true with the CAB as to what the Department of
Agriculture does. You have to mandate CAB to include on these air
bills the information which is necessary to carry out this provision.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Does this committee have jurisdiction in this leg-
islation to mandate to the Department of Transportation?
Mr. POAGE. Unless somebody raises a point of order against it. I
don't think anybody would.
Mr. BOR. One of the problems we run into when one addresses lan-
guage to the Civil Aeronautics Board
Mr. SEBELIUS. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. We are discussing sep-
arately this provision here.
Actually we are amending language which says "forms supplied by
the Secretary." My State grows more of these puppies than any other
State by far. A dog gets more stress when hauled by a truck or car
than by air travel. Air transportation people don't want any part of
this. They want to get out of hauling these animals.
That defeats the very purpose of those piishing this bill. If they are
not hauled by airfreight your puppies and dogs will really suffer
Mr. FITHIAN. I have some information with regard to this. I wonder
what the objection would be to striking the entire section.
Mr. POAGE. The feeling is that the present airbill does not give
enough information.
Mr. FITHIAN. I am sorry, sir.
Mr. POAGE. That is the reason.
Mr. HOGAN. Congressman Fithian, what you are talking about here
is a significant part of enforcement. If you want the Secretary to en-
force the laws having to do with handlers and carriers when they are
handling pets, dogs, cats, what have you, you then have to give them
something upon which to base their enforcement.
If they are handling a dog there is one principal way that the agency
enforcing the law can control this. It has to have some record in the
hands of the carrier and the hands of the intermediate handler where
the inspector for the Department of Agriculture can go in and see how
long an animal was retained and whether or not other regulations
with respect to their care and treatment were complied with and
Presumably the forms and records retained on file would insure that
the regulations were complied with by the handlers. If you delete
this provision entirely, you are taking out of the hands of the Secretary
and the Department much of their enforcement power.
Mr. FITHIAN. If I shipped a Christmas package to somebody, the
airline which shipped it would have a record and I would have a re-
ceipt of some kind, would I not, that it was put on a plane at such and
such a time? I believe you can trace lost items on an airline through
present recordkeeping systems.
I don't particularly care one way or the other on this. I raise the
question because of the basic thrust, and the basic thrust is that we keep


writing regulations and filling out forms until we get into a bureau-
cratic jungle.
Mr. POAGE. If you ship that package it does not have to be kept out
of the cold, Sun, and so on, but if you ship the dog we want the record
to show whether the dog did not arrive in 4 days, whether he boarded
at National Airport, whether he was fed at Richmond, and how the
dog was treated.
You ship a package of books and it makes no difference.
Mr. FITHIAN. I understand.
Mr. POAGE. The present records show that. The present airbill shows
everything you need at the present time but it does not show any of
those things we are trying to cover for these live animals.
Mr. BEDELL. The question is, How do we accomplish it? I tend to
agree with the gentleman from Indiana. I do not think we accomplish
it by getting more forms to fill out showing they did it.
Mr. POAGE. As Mr. Hogan points out, there has to be some way
of enforcement. You don't accomplish it unless you have some
The Department of Agriculture is chartered with enforcement. They
can get no records if the airbill and waybill do not show how the dog
was treated. However, if the waybill has to carry information about
the treatment of that dog, then the Department is in a position to
enforce those regulations.
The whole question, then, comes to this-the bill as now written
states the Department can require another document to go with the
Mr. MELCHER. If we merely amend this to state the Department will
give the language and terms attached to the airbill we have accom-
plished everything we want.
Mr. POAGE. That is right, if we give the Department the right to re-
quire CAB to include this on the airbill, all the information it needs.
Mr. FITHIAN. That is all I am suggesting, one document. I feel one
department should handle it.
Mr. POAGE. CAB has to have an airbill. You cannot carry on your
business without a bill. You have to have the airbill. If we asked CAB
to include such information as the Department of Agriculture feels
is necessary, it seems to me you have covered everything.
Mr. BERGLAND. If we broadened the definition of carrier to include all
persons engaged in the transporting of animals for hire, we are not
limiting it to airplanes.
Mr. HOGAN. That is right, Congressman.
Mr. BERGLAND. We are going to nonscheduled truck lines hauling
for hire and not just common carriers.
Therefore, by the language suggested by the gentleman from Mon-
tana we would find we could remedy the problem with commercial
air carriers, but what about nonscheduled carriers ?
Mr. POAGE. Those not carried by scheduled airlines can be required
to file with the Secretary of Agriculture. But when you already have
a documentation we just want to avoid duplicating it.
Mr. BERGLAND. That is right.
Mr. MELCHER. We are addressing ourselves to part of the situation.
We leave out that term. We don't buy that term "practicable" and so
on? We leave that out.


Mr. BOR. As I understand what has been proposed, it is that where
there are existing forms required by regulatory agencies, sucli as the
CAB and ICC, the Department of Agriculture or the Secretary w,::..ild
require that agency to include in those existing forms-
Mr. POAGE. Such information as he needs and wants. Such informa-
tion as he may require.
Mr. BEDELL. Where there are no such forms what would be done?
Mr. POAGE. He can require a full form then.
Mr. BEDELL. I move we delete section 8.
Mr. POAGE. The whole section?
Mr. BEDELL. Yes.
Mr. SEBELIUS. You would not want to do that because the present
language in the agency reads "a form supplied by the Scretary." By
this section we are trying to take care of that. In the prcs'.nt law if we
delete section 8 it will still read the present form supplied by the
Mr. BEDELL. I withdraw my motion.
Mr. POAGE. I wonder whether we can agree we will ask counsel to
prepare language necessary to eliminate the duplication of forms and
the authorization of the Secretary to require such information as he
may need on other departmental forms.
If there is no objection we shall so instruct counsel.
The Chair hears no objection. It is so ordered.
We shall now pass to section 9.
Mr. LITTON. Does this act cover horses which are destined fo.
Mr. BOR. The act at present does not. The way this is draft. it
would not include that category, although there las been testimony
given regarding that matter.
Mr. LITTON. I have an amendment to add horses destined for slaugh-
ter. My amendment would be added to page 4, line 7. It would include
horses destined for slaughter. We did have testimony on that.
Mr. POAGE. Yes; we did. It is in order.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. BERG LA ND. There is. I want to make a distinction between horses
for slaughter and cattle. They are on a nonregulated carrier headed
for Kansas City.
Mr. POAGE. Well, he looks at them and I am sure you can tell a horse
from a cow.
Mr. BERGLAND. I assume a qualified inspector would know that dif-
ference but I am thinking in terms of impact. Mr. McEwen mentioned
inhuman treatment of horses headed for Canada from this country.
How do we distinguish between those abuses and whatever abuses there
might be in the transportation of animals for slaughter which might
not be
Mr. POAGE. We make the distinction on the basis that we now have
legislation relating to shipment of cattle. I grant you it is inadequate
in my judgment with regard to the existing shipment of cattle because
trucks can go long distances without the unloading required of the
However, we have laws at the present time, and have had since 1916,
requiring unloading, feeding and watering of cattle moving by rail.

79-917 0- 76 4


I think our laws need some revision in that respect, but it is my
judgment that you would be doing a grievous harm to this bill if you
attempted to put that in here because if we put that in here today,
tomorrow morning you would have a delegation from a half dozen
different States here to fight the entire bill which are not now taking
part in this bill. The cattlemen and truckers are not participating in
this and are not fighting it. However, you would have every one of
those cattle truckers and almost everybody buying and selling
I agree with you we are abusing those shipments. We are hauling
calves out from the panhandle of Texas without ever unloading them,
and I know it. I do not think that is a sound practice.
Ho wcver, to put that in here seems to me to be a fast way of killing
the bill.
Mr. LITToN. My amendment-
Mr. POAGE. Your amendment had to do with horses.
Mr. Bergland asked about treating cattle in the same way.
The answer is the practical answer, that you cannot do it without
opening up problems we do not need to open up.
Mr. LiwTON. I move my amendment and then we can dispose of it.
On page 4, line 16, immediately before "The" insert the following
new sentence:
The Secretary shall also promulgate standards to govern the trans-
portation in commerce, and the handling, care, and treatment in con-
nection therewith, by any airline, railroad, shipping line, trucking
line, or other enterprise of horses consigned by any person, or any
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, for
transportation in commerce for the purpose of slaughter.
On page 7, line 11, strike out "or carrier" and insert in lieu thereof,
"carrier, or other airline, railroad, shipping line, trucking line, or
other enterprise."
I move those amendments.
Mr. POAGE. How do you determine that these are going for the pur-
pose of slaughter? Of course, if they are on an airline, common car-
rier, or truckline, you have a bill of lading. But if you are simply
going by a privately owned truck, as many are carried, there is no such
record. All the man has to do is to say he is carrying them to the next
county seat.
They are not the common carriers who are causing this unhappy
situation but they are the unregulated truck operators.
Mr. LITToN. I know it would be difficult in each case to identify
them but there are known circumstances where abuses are occurring.
At least this would put proper legislation on the books to permit the
Secretary to correct some of the known abuses.
Mr. POAGE. The point I make, however, is that you confine these in
commerce for the purpose of slaughter. It seems to me that opens the
door so that you would exempt every one of the illegitimate carriers.
You would catch the responsible carriers, sure, but they are not the
ones who are carrying on this practice now by and large.
Why do we need the words "for the purpose of slaughter" there?
If you leave that off then we have some real control over them.
I know then it involves the fellows carrying their own horses and


Mr. LITTON. I considered that. However, abuses do not usually occur
when one ships his own horses. There is no need for us to establish
regulations where abuses do not normally occur.
Mr. POAGE. That is what you are doing here. It seems to me you are
establishing it for the railroads and airlines and common carrier truck-
lines, and then you are exempting-not intentionally exempting but
the practical effect of these last words-is to exempt every illegitimate
There is no way in the world you can prove he is carrying them to
Canada for the purpose of slaughter. All he has to do is to say he did
not intend to carry them further.
Mr. BERGLAND. The gentleman from Texas is correct. The carrier
would be a private trucker who buys horses from Georgia and sells
them to someone in Montreal. That person in Montreal in turn is re-
selling them for slaughter. You cannot enforce this.
Mr. POAGE. I don't think you can enforce it at all. I am thoroughly
in accord with what the gentleman wants to do but adding these
words "for the purpose of slaughter" gives them a complete out, and
that is for every illegitimate operator.
Mr. MELCHER. I would like to agree with Mr. Litton and everybody
else about being humane in the shipment of horses or other animals,
but I wonder whether this bill which deals with laboratory animals,
cats and dogs, and animals sold in pet stores is the proper place to
start putting livestock in. Horses are classified as livestock.
This is a very miniscule part of the livestock movement in this
country. I don't presume we even have jurisdiction over the interstate
shipment of livestock, do we? Is that not in Commerce?
Mr. POAGE. We do.
Mr. MELCHER. Then horses belong in a broader category of livestock.
Mr. POAGE. We have defined livestock for the purpose of this bill,
practically having but horses and cattle and sheep.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I have an amendment.
Mr. POAGE. If you want to include these horses and cattle, I think
you are right, they are being sent for slaughter. But if we leave off
"for the purpose of slaughter" as you correctly pointed out, the man
carrying his own horses in a trailer will not be mistreating those
horses, not one case out of a thousand. The people we are trying to
get at would be caught if we leave off these five words.
Mr. SYMMS. I think there is another problem here. These wild
horses, horses turned loose on the rangelands in the Western States,
have in the last 10 years become a real menace to rangelands. They are
hard on the grass, they overgraze, and one horse eats what three cows
eat. What they are trying to do is round them up and get them off the
range. This also causes a lot of problems, emotional problems.
I would think this amendment might cause us problems, rounding
them up with helicopters, and so on. We don't want to do that.
I think we would be better off if we kept this a dog and cat bill,
which is perhaps an apt description of the bill. It would be better to
keep wild horses out of it.
Mr. POAGE. I don't think this relates to the wild horses.
Mr. SYMMS. It states the agency or other enterprise and horses con-
signed by other persons.


Mr. POAGE. This relates only to their transportation by carriers.
No carrier is involved in rounding them up.
Mr. SEBELIUS. The trouble is that if it looks attractive we will add
cattle, sheep, and all this again. I don't think the competitive nature of
the business will cause this to be a problem. This is a highly competi-
tive business and they compete to have the very best equipment. I
don't want to open the door for all these other things. You might have
to have a veterinary permit every time you move cattle, and cattle
move at least five times from the time they are calves until they get to
As much as I would like to help your business here, there are not
enough veterinarians around to check the cattle before you transfer
I am afraid this would be opening up something. It looks like a
fine thing. But I would just as soon leave this a cat and dog bill.
Mr. WEAVER. I move the previous question.
Mr. POAGE. The previous question has been moved on the Litton
amendment. All those in favor of the amendment by Mr. Litton will
raise their hands.
Those opposed?
The CLERK. Seven nays, three ayes.
Mr. POAGE. Seven nays and three ayes. The amendment fails.
Is there any other suggestion as to section 10?
Mr. HOGAN. The clerk is passing around another amendment to
section 10.
Mr. POAGE. Give us an explanation.
Mr. HOGAN. Page 4, line
Mr. D'AMOURs. We have not yet covered section 9.
Mr. POAGE. All right, section 9 is before us.
Is there any suggestion as to section 9?
Mr. SYMMS. I move we strike section 9 from the bill.
The people who own these animals, exhibitors, research facilities,
and so on, they have a certain interest in keeping this animal in
good health.
For us to specify these things, you would have to have all kinds
of architectural specifications with regard to shipping dogs. I know
when I ship my dog I personally see how the dog is going. I think that
is what most people should be doing. This is just impossible and it
will involve an awful lot of paperwork for the Secretary. They don't
need that responsibility. I think we would help them by deleting this
from the bill right now.
Mr. BERGLAND. It seems to me section 9 is the essence of what we
are trying to do. This is the operating title of the bill. If we don't
authorize the Secretary-the gentleman from Idaho knows precisely
what he is doing. He is a capable legislator, but I must disagree. I
think the amendment should stay in.
However, there are some questions which might arise as to broad
jurisdiction. Does it include snakes, fish?
Mr. SEBELIUS. The language says "adequate veterinary care."
Mr. SYMMS. This should be called the veterinary welfare amend-
Mr. HOGAN. Some of these questions can be answered in the report
accompanying the bill. They are raised here for the general infor-


mation of the committee. I think the language in the report can
address certain of these issues in the report accompanying the bill
unless the committee feels specific language is required.
Mr. SYmS. What will you do about these standards-containers,
feed, rest, ventilation, adequate veterinary care?
With that kind of broad language there is no telling what they
will come up with. It may be so bad I may not be able to get my dog
from Washington to Idaho without using my car. I have done that,
too. I am sure the dog prefers United Airlines. They have treated the
dog very well. I have never had a problem with lack of oxygen, and
so on.
Mr. MELCHER. I am a little concerned about what is meant by
"adequate veterinary care." Of course, these are standards that the
Secretary has to police.
I am not sure how that should be interpreted. We don't intend
under the act that a veterinarian be at the air terminal or at the
loading point, the receiving point, and so on. All we are concerned
about is that there be humane treatment.
Certainly if the animal appears to be sick, then the responsible
carrier is going to attempt to do the humane thing and get that
animal to a veterinarian. However, to just throw "veterinary care"
in here, I don't know what the term means. I tend to think we would
cover it better by saying "insuring humane treatment of animals,"
and then if the Secretary, in setting standards, wants to specify that
obviously sick animals should be placed under the care of a veteri-
narian as quickly as possible, it would remove any question involved
here. A veterinary can be available at the air terminal or terminal
of any other carrier.
Unless there is sound reason for putting it in I would urge the
committee to strike it.
Mr. POAGE. Is there any objection to striking the clause "adequate
veterinary care"?
Mr. BERGLAND. Is there any other section in the bill dealing with
this before it is loaded for shipment?
Mr. POAGE. That is another section.
Mr. BOR. There is a requirement that a veterinary's certificate be
Mr. POAGE. We can strike this language and the Secretary still has
the power to prescribe whatever is necessary to assure humane treat-
ment of the animals, including veterinary care where it is nece-s cy.
Is there objection to striking the three words?
The Chair hears no objection. The three words will be .tricken.
Mr. Symms now moves we strike out the entire section. All those
in favor of striking the entire section hold up your hands.
Those opposed?
The CLERK. Eight nays, one aye.
Mr. POAGE. There being one aye and eight nays, the amen- n 'ent
does not carry.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I have an additional amendment.
Mr. POAGE. Yes.
Mr. SEBELIUS. Line 16. When you name all these things you are
excluding everything else by a matter of legislative interpretation.


I would have it read "shall include" and then strike out everything
up to the word "factors" and put the word "such" in front of it. "The
statute will include such factors as the Secretary feels are relevant."
If you set out containers, ventilation, temperatures, you will have
all kinds of problems. Why not say the Secretary shall assure humane
treatment of animals in the course of transportation?
Mr. POAGE. Humane treatment of animals, including horses.
Mr. SEBELIIUS. Horses.
Mr. POAGE. Feed, water, ventilation.
Mr. SYMMS. I support the gentleman's amendment. I think any
time we do this we are opening the door for an absolute and unbeliev-
able type of regulation. I can just see when you turn loose 25 lawyers
and a few people concerned about dogs and cats, in my opinion dogs
and cats have it better in the United States of America than anywhere
else in the world. There are no dogs in China. They either shoot them
or eat them. We have dogs living high in this country. We will get
it so we cannot get the dogs on a plane if we are not careful. We make
a mistake if we don't tie this down. All we want to do with this amend-
ment is to say the dog will not have oxygen starvation. That is about it.
Mr. WEAVER. The gentleman is suggesting we should eliminate Red
Mr. SYMMs. No. I am saying the dogs have done well without this
law. If we pass a law so I cannot get my dog on a plane from Idaho
I will be disgusted.
If you start writing regulations for containers, feed, water, will
you say you have to take the dog off every 4 hours to feed him and
water him? It will not hurt a dog to go from one side of the United
States to another in a jet airliner as long as he is not too cold and has
oxygen. That is the main problem.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. I move the previous question.
Mr. POAGE. All those in favor of the amendment by Mr. Sebelius
raise their hands.
Those opposed?
The CLERK. Four ayes and four nays.
Mr. POAGE. The motion fails.
I would suggest we move the standards down to the end and say
that the standards that the Secretary of Agriculture may include such
requirements as are necessary to assure humane treatment of animals
in the course of their transportation in commerce, including but not
confined to containers, food, water, rest, ventilation, temperature, and
Mr. SEBELITTUS. All right.
Mr. POAGE. Is there objection to that?
The Chair hears none. If there is no objection it will be approved.
Mr. BOR. Is it your thought that the named factors would not be
the only things he might include? He might include other factors as
Mr. POAGE. All I was proposing to do was to shift the standards.
Give the Secretary the authority to prescribe regulations he wants to.
Mr. Sebelius points out, and I think correctly, that by putting these
in front of that that you then have limited what the Secretary can do.

Mr. SEBELIUS. The thrust is humane treatment of animals in trans-
portation. Then we do go back and ask whether he would consider
these things.
Mr. POAGE. These are some of the things he could do. It shifts it
from one place to another.
I think all it does is to clarify the power of the Secretary of Agri-
cultural. Frankly it does not limit the Secretary of Agriculture.
Mr. WEAVER. Are you suggesting that the language say "may in-
clude" or "shall include" ?
Mr. POAGE. I said "may include." I didn't use the word "may" at all
really. The Secretary of Agriculture may have the power to promul-
gate such rules and regulations relevant to assure humane treatment
of animals in the course of their transportation in commerce as he may
determine is necessary, "including feed, water, rest, ventilation,
Mr. SEBELIUS. The thrust is that it is humane treatment of animals
in the course of transportation. Then we come on and say these are
some things to be considered.
Mr. SYMMS. You say "standards shall" and change it to "standards
Mr. POAGE. I didn't use the word "standards" at all. I said the Sec-
retary might promulgate rules and regulations that he determines
necessary to assure humane treatment of animals in the course of their
transportation, including requirements with respect to food, water,
rest, ventilation, temperature, and handling. We do not include vet-
erinary care.
Frankly, I do not think it does what the original Sebelius amend-
ment would have done. I think it leaves the Secretary completely free
to impose these regulations but at the same time it does not limit him
to these things which are named here.
Mr. BOR. Would it accomplish your objective to say-including re-
quirements such as requirements with respect to-after the language
you read out. Instead of just saying "including requirements with
respect to containers."
Mr. POAGE. Put in whatever words are necessary.
Mr. BOR. Including requirements such as those you named?
Mr. POAGE. All right. Is there any object ion?
The Chair hears none. That will be approved.
Now we get to section 10. Do you have comments on section 10? This
is the veterinary certificate language.
Mr. HOGAN. You have a draft of the amendment before you, Mr.
Chairman. It goes to page 4, line 25.
Mr. POAGE. Talk to us. Don't just tell us the amendment.
Mr. HOGAN. This would amend the existing language basically by
striking "no animal" at the bottom of page 4, line 25, and substituting
therefore on your amendment page, starting "no dog or cats" down
through the second line. This is language recommended by the Society
for the Animal Association for Laboratory Animal Science. They are
concerned about shipping research animals and have this veterinary
certificate as a requirement for shipment.


This would limit it to dogs and cats or additional kinds or classes
of animals designated by the Secretary.
This language conforms generally to the existing language in the
bill which appears on page 5, lines 15 and 16 so that your language
here with respect to the certificate of the veterinary would conform to
that having to do with the animals, dogs, cats, and additional animals
shipped to research facilities if they are less than 8 weeks of age.
There is one other change in this amendment and that is the proviso
that is in the amendment at the bottom. That adds language "pro-
vided, however, that the Secretary may by regulation provide excep-
tions to this certification requirement, under such conditions as he may
prescribe in the regulations, for animals shipped to research facilities
for purposes of research testing or experimentation requiring animals
not eligible for such certification."
The rest of the language is as it appears in the bill.
Mr. BOR. There is one other change, the change in the form of the
The current bill would provide for a certification which states that
the animal was sound and healthy. There was testimony received
from several people which suggested a change in the form of certifica-
tion. This amendment provides instead for a certification which states
that the animal appeared free of any infectious diseases or physical
abnormality which would endanger the animal, animals, or other
animals during transit.
Mr. HoGAN. Yes, this is the one which Congressman Melcher was
concerned about. Several of the research facilities also mentioned this.
Mr. POAGE. Give us the purpose of exempting rats, mice, guinea
pigs, and so forth from the terms of the bill? Is that what this is
intended to do?
Mr. HOGAN. Basically that is the thrust of the provision, to give
some discretion to the Secretary. The third amendment which coun-
sel has referred to is one which in the existing law talks about the
certification of the veterinary, that is, that the animal is sound and
Mr. POAGE. We understand that. The rest of this language is in-
tended to exempt the small animals. Is that what it is intended to do?
Mr. HOGAN. Yes, sir, mice, hamsters, and such animals.
Mr. POAGE. It leaves it up to the Secretary to impose regulations if
he wants to as to those but does not require any regulations.
Mr. HOGANi. That is right.
Mr. MELCHER. The language as it pertains to the veterinarian cer-
tificate is a great improvement over what we now have. However, it
seems to be limiting the use of the certificate-that is, the veterinarian
looks at the animals to see whether they have an infectious disease
which would endanger other animals during transit. That is a limiting
factor and I see no reason for it.
WIhen a veterinarian issues a health certificate he looks to see
whether the condition of the animal is good as far as being able to be
transported, but also the question of whether or not an infectious dis-
ease is present is the key reason for the health certificate. I mean that
in the broadest form and not just for this bill. Health certificates are


issued to try to limit the spread of infectious diseases. That is the
No. 1 purpose.
This language seems to say that the danger of the infectious dis-
ease is pretty much limited to the animal or animals during transit.
I see no reason to say that. I think it defeats our purpose to say that.
I would just strike the words "during transit" and add "or cause or
result in a public health hazard."
If it is necessary to require a rabies vaccination the Secretary can
require it. Without that the Secretary can enforce a rabies vaccina-
tion if that is necessary or desirable.
Mr. POAGE. Is there any objection to the amendment from Mr.
Mr. MELCHER. Insert language "or endangers public health."
Mr. POAGE. The Chair hears no objection
Mr. MELCHER. Then I move the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. POAGE. Is there any objection to adopting the amendment as
The Chair hears no objection. It is therefore approved.
Does this cover all of 10?
Mr. MELCHER. It does not affect 10 (c).
Mr. BOR. No.
Mr. POAGE. This is only (b). This is a substitute for (a) and (b).
Mr. BERGLAND. There is no objection of section (c) from anybody,
is there ?
Mr. POAGE. If nobody has any objection to section (c)-counsel did
have some comments on section (c).
Mr. HOGAN. Just an explanatory statement for the benefit of the
members, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. If there is no objection to section (c) or section (d) then
let's take (c). If there is no objection (c) is approved.
Mr. BERGLAND. There are a number of questions raised on (d).
Mr. POAGE. Any comments on (d) ?
Mr. SEBELIUS. The suggestion with regard to the air transport boys,
they have enough facility to take care of them. The counselor is liable
to have them shipped back to him at his expense.
Mr. POAGE. That seems reasonable to me.
Mr. SEBELIUS. After word "charges" "any animal not claimed within
a period of 48 hours."
Mr. POAGE. Is there any objection? The Chair hears no objection.
It will be included.
Mr. HOGAN. The amendment suggested for line 13 in that same sub-
section is mainly technical, Mr. Chairman. You can add it or not, as
you wish.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I would move that change, also.
Mr. POAGE. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. It will be
Is there anything further on section 10? If not, section 10 will be
We will not be able to finish this today but I do want to thank those
of you who have been here because we have made significant progress.
I want to call attention to the fact that the latter part of this bill has
to do with dog fights. There is considerable support for that.


However, the Judiciary Committee has a bill before it with regard
to dog fights.
I talked with Mr. O'Neill and at one time he thought there was no
objection to our proceeding but lie then asked that we give him time to
give this further consideration. I have heard nothing further but I am
sure we will have his comments by the time of our next meeting.
I wanted you to be aware of the fact the Judiciary Committee does
make some comment with regard to our jurisdiction over this phase of
the bill. We will take this up at our next meeting.
At the first opportunity we feel we can get attendance we will try
to complete action on this bill. Thank all of you very much.
The subcommittee now stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon the subcommittee recessed.]


Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Bergland, Litton, Nolan, Weaver, Harkin,
Hightower, English, Fithian, D'Amours, Sebelius, Symms, and
Staff present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; William A. Imhof and John
E. Hogan, associate counsels; Nick Ashmore, staff assistant; John
Baize and Alan Gray, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Livestock
and Grains; Perry Shaw, Anita Brown, and Wanda Worsham, staff
Mr. POAGE. At this moment, we are two short of having a quorum.
If there are no objections by the members present, we will talk infor-
mally until our quorum is complete.
Let us commence the business of the day.
Mr. BOR. We have worked up to section 11, but have not started
that yet.
Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, there is a sheet before each of the mem-
bers indicating what the committee action was as of October 8.
Mr. POAGE. Section 11 is consultation and cooperation with other
Federal agencies.
Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Chairman, I do not recollect any comments or
constructive criticism of this section from anybody. Were there any?
Mr. POAGE. Does anybody have any suggestions as to section 11 ?
Mr. HOGAN. There was only one comment, Mr. Chairman, during
the hearings. That was from the CAB. They urged the Secretary to
consult with CAB before promulgating standards. They indicated that
the language of the act would appear to take care of this, so this could
be expanded on in the report accompanying the bill, if this is reported.
There is no need, I do not believe, based on the testimony, for any
change as such.
Mr. POAGE. All right. We agreed to that.
We will pass on to section 12. Are there any suggestions to amend
this section?
Mr. BOR. There is a typo in line 8; it should read second sentence.
Mr. POAGE. If there is no objection, we will make that change.


Mrs. Stevens recommends that violators be tried before the U.S.
magistrates. It may already be permitted, but the subcommittee may
wish to insert it to resolve any ambiguity.
Mr. HOGAN. This is taken care of, Mr. Chairman, in the following
section, section 13. It is only mentioned here because there was some
question initially, if the subcommittee wished to take action on this,
whether they would want to put it into section 16 of the existing law,
or whether they would want to put it in section 19.
If the subcommittee is to take action on this, I think the proper
place for it to appear would be in section 13 of this bill-that is in
section 19 which you are amending of the existing law. I do not think
there is any need to do anything with this.
Mr. POAGE. What is the subcommittee's wish as to whether these
proceedings ought to be before a magistrate?
Mr. BERGLAND. I am not a lawyer, so I am searching for help. What
does that mean?
Mr. BOR. At the moment, the criminal features of the act would be
enforced by the U.S. attorneys before the U.S. district court. Fre-
quently, when an action has to be instituted through this type of proce-
dure, the U.S. attorneys are perhaps more reluctant to institute crimi-
nal proceedings. If you can bring it before a U.S. magistrate, it makes
it easier to institute actions for criminal penalties. Frequently the U.S.
attorney is willing to have the Department of Agriculture representa-
tives, the people from the General Counsel's office, or the administra-
tive agency institute the proceedings under the authority of the U.S.
attorney, which he is reluctant to give when the action is before U.S.
district court.
Mr. BERGLAND. This would have the effect of removing some of the
traffic in the U.S. court?
Mr. BOR. It would have the effect of removing traffic in the district
courts, and perhaps make it easier to bring criminal proceedings.
Mr. BERGLAND. It seems to me that makes sense.
Mr. POAGE. It seems to me it is desirable to get everything we can
out of the Federal district courts.
What, of this, would come under State courts?
Mr. BOR. These are all Federal offenses, so it would not be before
a State court.
Mr. POAGE. It would not normally be before the State courts; but
how much of it could be before the State courts? Every State court
has to enforce Federal statutes.
Mr. BOR. The Federal courts enforce the Federal statutes rather than
the State courts.
Mr. POAGE. I know that is the practice. I mean that a State court
cannot ignore the Federal statute.
Mr. BOR. They would have no jurisdiction to enforce the Federal
statute. In a criminal proceeding, the criminal process can only be be-
fore a Federal court.
Mr. POAGE. I recognize that these crimes are crimes before the United
States, and not crimes against the separate States. A lot of this is sim-
ply regulations.
Mr. BOR. The only thing that would be before a U.S. magistrate
would be the criminal proceedings.


Mr. HOGAN. My understanding, as far as the U.S. magistrate is con-
cerned, it does give this flexibility. If an individual goes before a U.S.
magistrate and he demands a jury trial, then he has the right to go
into court.
Mr. POAGE. I know he does, but does anybody object to letting the
magistrate handle as much of this as he can? We have burdened our
Federal courts. Each year we are called upon to add materially to the
number of judges and courthouses. If we can alleviate that situation,
all to the good. Has anyone any objection to using these magistrates ?
If there is no objection, we will proceed that way.
The Chair is advised that we do have a quorum. Mr. Bergland moves
that the committee approves the informal action that has already been
taken. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none, and it will be
Mr. BOR. Would the staff have permission to insert that language at
an appropriate place?
Mr. POAGE. Certainly.
We will take up section 13. This involves violations by dealers, ex-
hibitors, and operators of auction sales, cease and desist orders.
The Interstate Commerce Commission has some comments.
A new subsection is suggested for (d) which just makes it apply
to the code.
Mr. BOR. That is right, sir. On page 7, the last line provides that in
review of civil penalty actions certain sections of the United States
Code shall apply. The proposed amendment that you have on your
desk would change the provisions of the existing laws so that there
would be the same references there to the United States Code as ap-
pears in the bill before the committee.
The current law has a reference to different sections of the United
States Code. It would seem more appropriate to refer to these partic-
ular sections.
Mr. POAGE. If there is no objection, we will use the reference to the
the Code.
The Chair hears none; it will be included.
Is there anything else on that section?
Mr. BOR. A question has been raised with respect to the civil penalty
procedures. They differ from the civil penalty procedures that cur-
rently apply, so that you have one system that applies to violations
under the current act, and another system as to violations of the new
provisions added by these amendments.
A suggestion has been received to try to bring the two systems into
conformity with one another.
The distinction is that, under the current law, before you can impose
a civil penalty as such, an administrative law judge must issue a cease
and desist order to a violator. A civil penalty would apply only if
there was a failure to comply with the cease and desist order.
Under the bill before the committee there is no provision made for
the first step. You go immediately to the second step, to a civil penalty
for those who have violated the provisions of the act. Those relate to
violations that occur under these amendments.
The committee may wish to consider changing the existing law to
make it follow the procedure that is set out in the proposed amend-


ment, or, on the other hand, changing the amendment so that the
violations of the amendments would follow the procedures that we
now have under existing law.
It may seem advisable, for the purpose of a simplified procedure, to
provide just for the civil penalty, but this is a matter for the com-
mittee's consideration.
Mr. POAGE. You have a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation.
Mr. BOR. It is not more than $1,000. The administrative law judge
would have discretion to take account of the nature of the violation,
and he could set it at a lesser figure.
In the existing law, they have a flat $500 set out as the civil penalty,
and there is no discretion to alter that to fit the nature of the offense.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I would move that we take the civil penalty up to
$1,000 and make it the same for the act as it is now plus the amend-
ment, so we will have one consistent item on the civil penalties.
Mr. POAGE. Are there any other comments?
If there are no objections to Mr. Sebelius' suggestion, it will be
Mr. FITHIAN. Just one question of counsel.
In what we are about to do, would the minimum penalty concept
be dropped?
Mr. BOR. The administrative law judge would determine what the
minimum penalty would be, but he could not go above $1,000. It could
go as low as $5.
Mr. POAGE. Does the gentleman object?
Mr. FITHIANX. No, I am not objecting.
Mr. POAGE. If there is no objection, we will adopt the Sebelius
Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Chairman, on page 9, line 5, the ICC has recom-
mended that we add the word "knowingly" after the word "to." I
note that the other sections, or subsections, consistently deal with the
question of whether or not persons knowingly do certain things-I
am sorry, I am ahead of myself.
Mr. POAGE. We will move to section 14, with regard to effective
dates, section 24 of the act.
As I understand it, you want to keep section 14 consistent with what
you anticipate what will be done in-section 24?
Mr. HOGANx. The clerk is handing out a recommendation prepared
by the Department that would put effective dates in for depending on
when the regulations are issued. Based on their experience, when the
original enactment was passed, they found that certain portions of
these amendments would take somewhat longer to implement due to
publication, and this kind of thing. The amendment that you have
to section 14 is 'language prepared by the Department to phase in.
Mr. POAGE. Might I suggest that all of this is based on calling this
the "Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1975." I think it is rather
clear that we are not going to get this enacted into law in 1975 because
the Rules Committee has already given us a deadline. Shouldn't we
change this to 1976 all the way through the bill?
Mr. HOGAN. If we could make conforming technical amendments
to conform with what we understand to be the progress of the bill,
the committee could give us that flexibility.
Mr. POAGE. With that understanding, we will proceed.

As to these suggested amendments, they merely relate to the dates
that certain phases become effective.
It that right?
Mr. HOGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. POAGE. Does anybody have any objection to these amendments
as suggested?
The Chair hears none. They will be adopted.
Mr. BOR. Mr. Chairman, could I go back to section 13?
Mr. POAGE. Yes.
Mr. BOR. The Department had made a suggestion that appears on
page 8 of this summary that you have before you that would make the
civil penalties apply to anybody who violates subsection (c) of the
The way it is now drafted, it does not seem to reach all of the vio-
lators, only some of the violators.
What they would do is to add on page 7, line 13, where it says, "Any
intermediate handler or carrier that violates any provision of section
13 of this act * *," these words: "* * or any other person not
subject to subsection (a) of this section, or section 20 of this act, that
violates subsection (c) ."
Anybody who violates subsection (c) would be subject to the civil
penalty provision.
Mr. POAGE. Why was it originally written as "Any intermediate
handler or carrier * *"? Aren't they the only ones who could
violate it?
Mr. BOR. I think it would probably also catch some of the officials
that might work for the carriers who are responsible for the actions
that gave rise to the violations.
Mr. POAGE. Do you mean that what you are trying to do here with
this amendment is to make the President of American Air Lines
responsible-make him guilty of a crime in connection with a mis-
treatment of a shipment of animals at Washington airport?
Mr. BOR. This would not be addressed to the criminal penalties. It
would be addressed only to the civil penalty.
Mr. POAGE. Are you going to make the officer of the company liable?
The company is liable. We want the company to be liable, but what
is the justification for making that officer sitting over in Chicago,
who knows not one thing in the world about that treatment, liable?
You are going to make the company pay a penalty, if they do not
handle the shipment properly. That is fine. However, to make some
individual, just because he is a corporate officer liable for another
penalty, seems to me to be stretching this thing too far. That is the
kind of thing that gets us into trouble with these bills, it seems to me.
Mr. BOR. I do not think it is really addressed to the man who sits
in Chicago, but rather the man who was on the scene and who was
the, person responsible for the violation.
Mr. POAGE. Who do you say you are going to make responsible?
Read it to us.
Mr. BOR. It says. "* * any other person * that violates sub-
section (c) of this Act."
That man sitting in Chicago would not be the violator.
Mr. POAGE. You have already got the intermediate handler: you
have got the carrier. They are named. They are responsible. They


have got to pay the fine if their agent acts wrongfully. But who do
you mean by any other person unless you mean corporate officials?
Mr. BOR. When you are dealing with an intermediate handler or
carrier, you are addressed really to the corporation. It would not
cover the person working for the corporation who is the one who was
actually on the scene.
Mr. POAGE. Do you want to assess a penalty of $1,000 against Ameri-
can Airlines and also assess a like penalty against the fellow who
physically handled the box? Do you want to levy a $1,000 fine against
a fellow who is drawing $3 an hour?
Mr. BOR. That is a question that I am raising to the subcommittee.
Mr. POAGE. If we were to bring such a bill out, we would have prob-
lems. There is a lot of prejudice against these bills anyhow.
I happen to believe in some controls over the way to handle these
animals. I think we ought to have it. However, I think, if we go to
those extremes, we are not going to get anything.
It looks to me like we had better get something that we can pass
and enforce rather than try some kind of punitive action here.
Mr. SEBELIUS. Definitely. I am sure that American Airlines, which
we are using as an example, or whoever else is going to get civil
penalty, are going to have the proper attitude toward whoever their
employee was that made the violation. That would be something they
can do within their own organization.
Mr. D'Arou-Rs. I would like to inquire of counsel whether the re-
quirement of knowledge on the part of the airline is present, is it not?
There is a knowledge requirement before they be violated ?
Before an airline can be convicted of a violations case, wouldn't
there be a requirement that it be proven that they had knowledge of
the act-that they were committing the violation?
Mr. BOR. When you are dealing with civil penalties, it appears that
the word knowingly or intentionally is not part of the offense.
When you are dealing with a criminal penalty, it appears that it is.
In other words, before you can bring criminal proceedings, you
would have to show that it is a known violation. But, with regard to
the civil penalty provision, if you look on page 7, it says "any inter-
mediate handler or carrier that violates any provision of Section 13
of the Act." It does not use the word "knowingly" violates.
Mr. D'AmouRs. As a matter of fact, though, wouldn't a civil magis-
trate, before assessing a fine, consider whether or not there was knowl-
edge? Wouldn't that be a part of his consideration before he actually
assessed a fine?
Mr. BOR. This would be before an administrative law judge.
Mr. D'AMOURs. In either case?
Mr. BOR. The extent of civil penalty could well depend on the
knowledge that the carrier had.
Mr. D'AMOf-RS. The reason for my questionn is this: I agree with
the comments made that, if we have sufficient sanctions against the-
the example used was airline-that they ought to control their em-
ployees. I wondered about the possibility where the airline would
escape any censure, any violation, any crime, because of lack of knowl-
edge-the knowledge being that of the employee who was not covered
by section 8.
In that case, shouldn't we give the administrative judge some tool
so he could get at the, in fact, culpable party?

Is that a possibility?
I agree with what the chairman and Mr. Sebelius have been saying.
The companies would control their employees if the companies them-
selves were subject to the fine.
But, if the company could avoid the fine because they could show
a lack of knowledge, and you had an obviously guilty and knowledge-
able employee who was not covered-
Mr. POAGE. The company cannot avoid knowledge when their em-
ployee has knowledge. The company has knowledge whenever their
employee has knowledge.
Mr. D'AMouRs. If that were the case, Mr. Chairman, then I would
agree with you entirely. I wanted to be sure that the administrative
judge had somebody that he could get his hands on.
Mr. POAGE. If the agent had knowledge, the company had
Mr. D'AMOURS. If that is the way it would work, then I would have
no objection to what you are doing.
Mr. POAGE. Does anybody want to put the amendment on what has
been suggested?
The Chair does not hear any movement to put it on, so it will not
go on.
Mr. BOR. I think the subcommittee had adopted the proposed amend-
ment that deals with the change in the effective date. This was laid
before the subcommittee, and I do not recall whether the subcommit-
tee had taken any action to adopt it.
Mr. POAGE. We agreed to that.
Mr. BOR. The next item relates to the annual report of the Secretary.
There has been some suggestion that, in making the annual report,
it should be developed in consultation with other Government depart-
ments such as the Department of Transportation.
Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a rather important
proposition. Carriers are obliged to file reports with various agencies
from time to time. I understand that much of the information they
provide can be given to the Secretary, and they need not go back to be
paneled again. This can reduce some of the redtape that would other-
wise be imposed upon them.
I am not quite sure on the language, but I think it is a point we
ought to consider. Do you have language prepared to eliminate some
of the duplication that otherwise would arise?
Mr. BOR. We could provide that these recommendations and conclu-
sions would be presented after there had been consultation with other
regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over them.
Mr. POAGE. That does not exactly refer to what Mr. Bergland was
suggesting, it seems to me.
Mr. BERGLAND. I would not object to having the Secretary author-
ize to inquire of the FAA; for example, as to certain information the
Secretary may need in compiling his report. The FAA may have what
he needs, because carriers report to the FAA from time to time on
shipping matters.
Mr. POAGE. But what they are proposing is to require consultation
between the Secretary and them.
Mr. BERGLAND. That would probably eliminate some of the duplica-
tion that might otherwise occur.

79-917 0 76 5


Mr. POAGE. How?
Mr. BERGLAND. If the Secretary counsels with the FAA, they may
say we have this information. You do not have to put that in your
Mr. POAGE. All you were requiring about what you were reading
was that there be consultation between the two agencies. Consultation
means phone somebody six times, get him on the seventh call, agree
to meet, postpone it a few times, and so on.
Mr. BERGLAND. I worked in the Department of Agriculture 7 years.
I will admit that what you say is unfortunately all too accurate. How-
ever, what I am getting at is to try to devise language that would set
aside the need for the Department of Agriculture to go over to the
carriers and get the same information that had already been
Mr. POAGE. I agree. I do not know that we need to have all these
reports. Some of these reports are apparently already available in
other agencies. In other words, we get the Department of Agriculture
requiring reports that the CAB already reports, as I understand it.
Mr. HOGAN. At the bottom of the page on section 15, you are merely
adding one additional requirement to the report that is in existence,
in existing law, requiring three specific items to be submitted by the
Secretary in a report to the Congress each March. What you are
doing here is adding a fourth item having to do with recommenda-
tions and conclusions concerning aircraft environment.
Mr. POAGE. That is all you do if you leave it like it is written.
Mr. HOGAN. That is correct.
Mr. POAGE. But if you begin to put these amendments on you are
then requiring consultation, you are requiring meetings, you are re-
quiring duplication of reports.
Mr. HOGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. POAGE. If we leave it alone, we have just said to the Secretary,
in your report, just give us the recommendations and conclusions in
regard to the aircraft and what you have found out about the trans-
portation of live animals. That is all we are saying to him by the bill
as it is drawn. Personally, I do not see any objection to the bill as it
is drawn in that respect.
Mr. BERGLAND. On that point, could we contain language in the
committee report that would indicate that we would expect the Secre-
tary of Agriculture would consult with, appropriate agencies?
Mr. HOGAN. This is a specific recommendation of the FAA. They
wanted some protection so that there was some dialog before the
Department would make its recommendation to Congress without
some discussion. That was the reason this suggestion was made, if the
committee wanted to go along with it.
Mr. SEBELIUS. Mr. Chairman, I move we leave it like it is.
Mr. BERGLAND. I have no objection. I just do not want the Depart-
ment of Agriculture to construct some fool report that they do not
know anything about.
Mr. POAGE. If there is no objection, we will leave the language like
it is.
The Chair hears no objection to that.
If there is no objection, we will insert in the report language such
as Mr. Bergland suggested here.


The Chair hears no objection to that.
We are ready to move on.
Mr. BOR. The next section, section 16, dealing with section 26 of the
act, would make it unlawful for any person knowingly to sponsor or
exhibit any animal in an animal fighting venture.
The threshold question is the issue of whether the subcommittee
wishes to include this provision in the bill.
If you do wish to include this in the bill, one of the suggestions
made is that when you get to subparagraph (b), that you add the word
"knowingly" before the words "to sell, buy, or transport," so as to make
it clear that there would be an offense only if the person knowingly
violated these provisions.
I think that was a typographical error, because the word "know-
ingly" was used in subsection (c), but it was omitted in subsection (b).
Mr. BERGLAND. It is also used in subsection (a).
I move the word "knowingly" appear on line 5 after the word "to".
Mr. POAGE. That reads, "to knowingly sell, buy, transport," and so
Mr. BERGLAND. Yes, sir.
Mr. POAGE. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none. The word "knowingly" will be inserted.
Mr. HIGHTOWER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question for
I seem to remember some discussion at the time of the hearings.
Does the term "or other animal" include fowl?
Mr. POAGE. I think clearly it does.
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, I move to strike this
whole section-the part on fighting. I am not an advocate on dog-
fighting or cockfights, but if we leave this section in we are going to
be asking the Department of Justice for a whole turn of things in law
enforcement. They have enough to do without adding this to their list.
Let's leave this up to the States. That is my position on it.
The Justice Department has its hands full with the drug problem
and everything else they are involved in. This would be one more re-
sponsibility they would have to contend with. They would have to
go out and break up these cockfights wherever they have them across
the country.
I think we could very well leave it out of the bill.
Mr. BERGLAND. Would the gentleman suggest we leave the drug law
enforcement up to the States as well?
Mr. SYMms. Yes; probably we could.
I think the Justice Department has plenty to do. You gentlemen
would agree with me, wouldn't you?
Is the Department of Agriculture going to enforce this?
Mr. POAGE. Yes.
Mr. SYMMS. How is the Department of Agriculture going to go out
and enforce it?
Mr. HARKIN. We are talking about movement in interstate and for-
eign commerce. This under the purview of the Federal Government,
not the State government. I think that is at what the gentleman from
Minnesota was getting, you can have State laws if you want. In many
cases they do not cover the interstate transfer of things. For their pur-
poses, they can only take care of it if it happens within their locality.


Mr. SYmms. I withdraw the amendment if there is no support for it.
Mr. POAGE. The gentleman withdraws the amendment.
Is there any further suggestion of change to section 26?
Mr. HIGHTOWER. It has been called to my attention by counsel, in
response to my question a minute ago about chickens, that under sub-
paragraph (f) (1) animal fighting venture is defined, and under sub-
paragraph (5) animal means any live dog or other mammal. That
would appear to exclude chickens.
Mr. BOR. It excludes chickens. So cockfighting would not be covered
by this bill. It would apply, however, to dogfighting ventures.
Mr. BERGLAND. It would seem to me-cockfighting ought to be in-
cluded. If we are going to deal with dogfighting-
Mr. POAGE. Most of the States have laws that there are no cock-
fights. I don't know what States do not. Even Texas has a law against
Mr. BERGLAND. In the light of that, it would seem to be appropriate
that we add the proper words. How do you define a chicken for this
Mr. SYMMS. You are opening a Pandora's box.
Mr. HOGAN. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that in the newest
territories added to the United States-most recently the areas in
what was Micronesia-cockfighting is, I guess, one of the principal
sports in that area.
This is in Guam, Tinian, Saipan-some of the islands in the newest
territories added to the United States.
Mr. BERGLAND. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if it is against the
law to sponsor a cockfight in the State of Texas, it ought to be against
the law to transport them across State lines. I would argue that it be
included. I am not prepared with an amendment. I do not know how
you would define it exactly.
Mr. POAGE. We can do that all right.
Mr. HARKI.IN. Just include the word "fowl," as "any live dog, fowl,
or other mammal."
Mr. POAGE. You get into a great deal of trouble when you try to cover
everything. Sometimes there are badger fights.
Mr. HARKIN. Badgers? They are mammals, aren't they? They would
be defined under subsection (5).
Mr. BERGLAND. Can counsel or anyone help us on this? Was there a
reason why fowl were not added?
Mr. BoR. I think probably the reason is one that Mr. Hogan men-
tioned-it is a commonly accepted sport in certain areas.
Mr. HARKIN. I would say that if they wanted cockfighting in Guam
or Micronesia, let them. This farm amendment would simply mean
that they cannot ship them to other parts of the country. If they want
to raise them there, or if any State wants to pass a law allowing cock-
fights, let them.
Mr. SEBELIUTS. You are stating that is interstate commerce. You do
not have to prove that transportation.
Mr. POAGE. We have declared in here that everything is interstate
I am afraid, if you pass a law here, you have made it applicable to
Guam and Samoa and everywhere else. There is no such thing as com-
merce that is not interstate any more, that I know of.

Can you give me a single example of anything-any commercial
transaction-that is not interstate?
Mr. HARKIN. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that there are examples of
it that are totally within the State border and do not have anything to
do with interstate commerce.
Mr. POAGE. But they are declared to be interstate commerce. This
bill declares almost everything to be interstate commerce.
Mr. HOGAN. There is a special definition on page 11, in the middle of
the page, for this particular section, as to what would constitute inter-
state or foreign commerce for the purposes of section 26. I will read it:
The term "interstate or foreign commerce" means (A) any movement between
any place in a State to any place in another State between places in the same
State through another State; or (B) any movement from a foreign country into
any State.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, in section 4, it indicates any territory.
Those territories that now allow cockfighting could not transport fowl
between those territories.
Mr. HOGAN. And not from a foreign country into those territories.
Mr. ENGLISH. The law would include even the territories. If they
had to bring fowl in from a foreign country into one of the territories
or transporting fowl between territories-under this law they couldn't
do it.
Mr. HARKIN. If they can go ahead and raise their own cocks, OK.
Mr. POAGE. I wonder if we are at a position where we might bring
the bill to a point where we could move to report the bill?
Mr. HARKIN. I would like to make an amendment to that section.
I move that we amend section 26, page 11, line 24, by inserting after
the word "dog", the following: ", fowl," and then you can continue on
with the rest of the sentence.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I move the previous question on the amendment.
Mr. Mr. Chairman, I oppose that. I think it is a mistake to
put it in the bill. We are going to stir up a whole new problem area.
Since I am against the bill, I'll not object to its inclusion but I think
you are making a mistake.
Mr. HARKIN. I think it is going to be put in some place anyway.
Someone is going to attempt it, and I think we ought to face up to it
right now. If it does get included on the floor-if the bill makes it that
far and gets accepted.
Mr. POAGE. All those in favor of the amendment of Mr. Harkin,
say "aye." All those opposed, "nay."
Will those in favor hold up your hands? Aye-3. Opposed-5.
The nay's have it. The amendment is not adopted.
Mr. Sebelius moved to report. Well, we cannot do that. We will have
to rewrite the bill. We ask that the staff redraft the bill completely
with the adopted amendments in it. We will report to the full com-
mittee the rewritten bill.
Mr. POAGE. All those in favor say "aye"; opposed, "nay."
The ayes have it.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. BERGLAND. Have we terminated our business. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. That is right. We will not take any further amendments
to the bill. But go right ahead, Mr. Bergland.


Mr. BERGLAND. I note that the Transport Association has suggested
that we change the definition of interstate commerce to conform to the
Interstate Commerce Act. The Postal Service has recommended certain
technical changes. We did not consider those. Is there a reason? Should
we take them up, or not?
We could do it in full committee, if it is important.
Mr. POAGE. Yes; I think we can, and we may want to take them up in
full committee.
Mr. BOR. Frankly, I do not know what the merit is of these two
Mr. BERGLAND. I will talk with counsel later.
Mr. POAGE. We will present any defects that have been overlooked in
the full committee.
In fact, I would like to discuss in the full committee the very first
of this bill. The bill goes exactly the contrary to what I have urged in
legislation for many years.
We write a Fourth of July speech in the first section. I do not know
the necessity of it. You then turn around and define these things. I
think we have got a perfect right to define them.
However, we start out in this bill by saying that it is also essential
for humane reasons to prohibit certain animal fighting ventures. The
Congress hereby finds that animals and activities which are regulated
under this act are either in interstate or foreign commerce. That is
the part I wanted Mr. Harkin to hear.
We are sitting here finding that this is in interstate and foreign corn-
mere. I don't think it is any of our business to make that finding. That
is a matter of fact.
Mr. BOR. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee at your suggestion had
deleted that provision from the bill.
Mr. POAGE. We have already done that. Fine.
The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
We will meet as quickly as we can and try to bring this to the full
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the
call of the Chair.]



Washington, D.C.
The committee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Poage. de la Garza. Vigorito. Jones of
North Carolina, Melcher, Mathis, Beraland, Rose, Litton, Breckin-
ridge, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs, Harkin, Bedell, McHugh, Eng-
lish, Fithian, Jenrette, Thornton, Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone,
Symms, Peyser, Heckler, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn and Moore.
Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor and
Hyde H. Murray, counsel; William A. Imhof and John E. Hogan,
associate counsels; Nick Ashmore, staff assistant; John Baize and
Alan Gray, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains;
Glenda Temple and Susan Bell, staff assistants.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order.
The scheduled business for our first meeting of the committee's sec-
ond session includes two bills, one from the Subcommittee on Tobacco,
and the other from the Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains.
Before proceeding with the legislative business at hand, the Chair
has the pleasure of introducing and welcoming to this committee, the
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. Thornton, who has sub-
mitted his resignation to the House Committee on the Judiciary, and
received assignment to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Thornton is, as I think some of you know, a distinguished former
attorney general of his State. He was an outstanding member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, and I know he will make the same im-
portant and valuable contribution to the work of this committee that
he has throughout his service in the House.
Also, we would like to report to the committee that, by action of the
committee's Democratic caucus, it has been recommended that Mr.
Thornton be assigned to the Subcommittees on Livestock and Grains,
Oilseeds and Rice, and Forests.
Without objection, he will be assigned to those subcommittees as a
majority member.
On the majority side we have had two vacancies since the beginning
of the last session of this Congress. The Chair is very pleased by the
assignment of Mr. Thornton to this committee and by his willingness
to accept this assignment. I know all the members will find him an
extremely valuable member. Mr. Thornton, we look forward to your
service with great pleasure.

The Chair would like to make two preliminary announcements. We
have a tentative schedule, which will be announced today, setting a
course for the committee in the coming weeks. The Chair is of the
opinion that it might be better if further consideration of grain inspec-
tion be postponed for a short time until the General Accounting Office's
report becomes available.
The committee has been advised that the General Accounting Office
anticipates meeting its scheduled deadline of February 15. At least,
that is our present information. Rather than schedule markup sessions
on that proposed legislation in the interim, it seems wiser to await the
submission of the GAO's report. In this way the committee would have
the benefit of any information contained in that report during its
deliberations on the bill.
It is therefore my intention to schedule all further meetings on grain
inspection after February 15.
The Chair had earlier indicated to the House and members of the
committee that we would begin public hearings with respect to food
stamp recommendations promptly after the beginning of the new year.
I have tentatively scheduled January 28 as the first day of the hear-
ings, January 29 and February 2, if necessary, will also be set aside to
hear Members of Congress only. This will be followed on February 10
and 11 by witnesses from the Department of Agriculture. Subsequent
hearing dates will be set for the appearance of public witnesses.
On February 3, the committee will again welcome Secretary Butz
for a discussion of the general agricultural outlook. In addition the
Secretary will respond to questions or inquiries from the members.
This meeting, as members may recall, had been previously scheduled
for the month of December; but it was not possible to arrange it before
the end of the session.
It will also be announced today that February 17 and 18 have been
set aside for public hearings on H.R. 11339 by Mr. Wampler, which is
entitled the National Agricultural Research Policy Act of 1976.
Subcommittees on Conservation and Credit and Rural Development
will be meeting on January 27, 28, and 29 at 10 a.m. in joint se:;sion
with the Senate Subcommittee in room 322 of the Russell Senate Office
Building. On February 4 and 5 at 10 a.m. these hearings will continue
in room 1301, of the Longworth House Office Building. The hearings
will discuss oversight and management of the Farmers' Home Admin-
istration, and the authorization for the FHA. They will be chaired
jointly by Mr. Bergland and Senator Clark.
Are there any questions regarding our proposed schedule?
There is another matter that I want to bring briefly to the attention
of the committee. A week from today, on January 28, at 2 p.m., we will
have a full committee briefing, which will be open to the public, on the
Budget Act of 1974 and its impact on the work of this committee. That
briefing will be conducted by our staff and the staff of the House Budget
There are some extremely important aspects of the Budget Act which
become fully effective this year with respect to the schedule and work
of the committee. I hope that members will take the time to attend that
briefing since it is rather important to our scheduling of legislation,
particularly in the first months of this session.
We are required by the Budget Act, for example, to submit all budget
outlay recommendations and estimates by March 15, and to report all


authorization bills for fiscal year 1977 to the House no later than
May 15.
Because expenditure authority acts cannot be reported prior to
May 15, the Budget Act plays a very definite and powerful role in
terms of the scheduling of our committee business. We will be asking
the subcommittee chairmen and their ranking minority members in
particular to attend in order to estimate their own subcommittee work
in these early months.
The matter that is scheduled for action by the committee is from
the Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains. It is the bill H.R. 5808,
the Animal Welfare Act amendments.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished chairman of the subcommit-
tee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poage.
Mr. POAGE. Sheets containing seven technical amendments to this
bill are being passed out to you. I am going to ask unanimous consent
that we consider the seven technical amendments. I do not think that
anyone has any objection to them, Mr. Chairman. I think it will be a
more orderly procedure if we can accept these amendments before
we go on with the bill. Does anyone want to discuss them?
If the members do not want to discuss them, I would move the adop-
tion of the technical amendments.
Mr. PEYSER. I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, but I would like
to take a moment to glance at these.
Mr. POAGE. They have just been presented this morning by the staff
that has done the reviewing.
[The technical amendments referred to follow:]
1. Page 1, line 8, insert "(a)" after the words "amended by" and page 2,
line 12, strike the final period and insert ", and (b) inserting in paragraph (g)
immediately after 'food and fiber' the following: '. With respect to a dog, the
term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding
Explanation.-This makes clear that hunting, security, and breeding dogs are
covered by the Act within the definition of the term "animal".
2. Page 2, line 5, insert after "retail pet store" the words "except such store
which sells any animals to a research facility, an exhibitor, or a dealer."
Explanation.-This reinstates language currently contained in the Act which
was inadvertently omitted in the amendment to the definition of dealer.
3. Page 3, line 2, insert after the word "person" the words "including a depart-
ment, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or of any State or local
Explanation.-This makes clear that delivery of animals to airports or other
facilities maintained by a Federal or State agency are covered by the provisions
that apply to intermediate handlers.
4. Page 5, line 2, insert after "United States" the words "or of any State or
local government."
Explanation.-This makes clear that delivery of animals by State or local
governments to carriers are covered by veterinarian certificate requirements.
5. Page 6, line 9, insert after "48 hours" the words "after notice to the con-
signee of arrival of the animal."
Explanation.-This makes clear when the 48-hour period begins within which
C.O.D. charges must be paid.
6. Page 7B, line 2, insert "knowingly" before the word "violates".
Explanation.-Under this amendment a violation would be considered a crim-
inal offense only if the violation was a knowing violation.
7. Page 12, delete lines 11 through 16.
Explanation.-A comparable provision is already contained in the Act.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask unanimous consent that the
bill H.R. 5808 be considered as read, put in the record, and open for
amendment at any point, and, further, without objection the technical
amendments will be considered as being offered. After the members
have had an opportunity to examine them, the bill will be open for
Mr. BERGLA.\ND. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from
Texas-do these amendments in any way alter the decisions that were
agreed to in subcommittee?
Mr. POAGE. I was told by the staff that they do not. They are just
amendments to make perfectly clear what is wanted, and not to change
any substantive part of the bill.
Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you.
The CIIAIRM-AN. Is there any discussion regarding the proposed
technical amendments?
M.r. HARKIN. I have one that looks like it is more than just a tech-
nical amendment.
In the fifth item, it reads to insert after "48 hours" the words "after
notice to the consignee of arrival of the animal." In the original bill,
I know we had this discussion in the subcommittee, and that is for any
animal not claimed within a period of 48 hours. I wonder if that is not
more than just a technical change. One had it not claimed within a
couple of days, the other was after notice to the consignee. What is
constructive notice? What is actual notice? Is it constructive notice or
actual notice?
Mr. IMHOF. If the committee desires, we would accommodate a
further amendment. What was intended by this technical change was
just to make it clear that it was from actual notice.
Mr. HARKIN. Actual notice?
Mr. IMHOF. Yes, sir.
Mr. HARKIN. So, in other words, there has to be some kind of a
receipt or something like that to make sure that actual notice was
given rather than just something that was sent out.
Mr. IMHOF. In the case of railroads, sir, it is frequently accom-
modated by telephone, and written record is made of the telephone
call, but this could be left to the discretion of the Secretary promul-
gating regulations under the statute.
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, isn't it clear that if you don't put some-
thing there, there is no way of knowing just when there is a failure to
claim the animal.
Mr. IMHOF. The idea was to make clear what we understood the
original intention to be.
The CHAIRMAN. The original language left it rather vague as to
when there was a failure to claim the animal. This is an attempt, I
gather, by staff to set a definite time period during which the animal
had to be claimed.
Will the staff please read the original language, to which this is
amendatory ?
Mr. IMHOF. It is on page 6 of H.R. 5808 as reported by the sub-
committee, Mr. Chairman. I will read the entire section beginning
on line 3:
No intermediate handler or carrier involved in the transportation of any
animal affecting commerce shall participate in any arrangement or engage in
any practice under which the cost of such animal or the cost of the transportation

of such animal is to be paid and collected upon delivery of the animal to the
consignee unless the consignor guarantees in writing the payment of transporta-
tion charges for any animal not claimed within a period of 48 hours * *
The question remained, Mr. Chairman, as to when the 48-hour period
began and we are simply trying to clarify that.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, does it begin after the arrival of
the animal at its destination or following notification of the consignee
that the animal has arrived. This is an attempt to fix the time.
Mr. HARKIN. In other words, it will still read "for any animal not
claimed within a period of 48 hours after notice to the consignee . ."
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Without such language, it is not
clear when that 48-hour period begins. Does it begin, for example, at
the moment the animal arrives at this destination or after notice?
Mr. HARKIN. I had misinterpreted this.
Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other discussion on the technical
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I have a question on amendment No. 6
where it speaks of page 7B, line 2. It says ". . insert 'knowingly'...".
It seems to me, if it is the intent to bring action against people who
violate this law, you really have just eliminated any punitive action
whatsoever. It is like having a speeding regulation, and then someone
violates it and knocks a man down and says that lie didn't know about
the speeding regulation, so he is not guilty as charged because he didn't
"knowingly" violate the law.
Accordingly, someone could claim immunity to violation if this
amendment goes through.
If the intent is to have a bill with some teeth in it and that is mean-
ingful, the inclusion of that word seems to me to eliminate all the
punitive measures in the bill.
Mr. POAGE. May I point out that the committee was not taking any
specific action on this as I did consider the question of whether we
were going to use criminal or civil penalties. We did decide that we
would use criminal penalties and presume that the general under-
standing with criminal is that you cannot make a crime out of some-
thing that an individual doesn't know about.
Mr. PEYSER. I believe the standard is that ignorance of the law
is no excuse.
Mr. POAGE. Ignorance of the law is certainly no excuse before the
law in criminal procedures.
I take it staff was merely making this conform to the general rule
of procedure, because at least 98 percent of our criminal law does
require knowledge on the part of the perpetrator of the crime.
Mr. PEYSER. I would like to then direct to the staff this question:
does the staff have any other legislation that either we have enacted or
that you have seen enacted dealing with the establishment of a law
that says "knowingly" ?
Mr. IMHOF. Yes, sir.
There are a number of criminal statutes to that effect.
Mr. PEYSER. Enactments that we have passed in the Congress that
use that terminology?
Mr. IMHOF. Enactments that we have passed this year?
Mr. PEYSER. Yes, passed by Congress, this year or in any other year.


Mr. IMHOF. Yes, sir. For example, the animal quarantine laws,
There is a body of jurisprudence that has grown up to the effect that
the term "knowingly" requires an intention to commit the act-but
not a requirement that you know the act is wrong. Whereas, a require-
ment that the violation be "wilful," which appears in some criminal
statutes, might require some knowledge that the act was wrong.
So insertion of the term "knowingly" would not have the effect of
exculpating any violator for lack of knowledge that the act he com-
mitted was unlawful.
Mr. PEYSER. I withdraw my objection.
Mr. BOR. Mr. Peyser, there is another thing that should be brought
to your attention and that is there are provisions for civil penalties
separate and distinct from the criminal provisions. Under the pro-
visions for civil penalties the Secretary has authority to impose a
penalty of not exceeding $1,000 for each violation. In which case, it
is unnecessary to establish that the violation was a knowing violation.
We have included the term "knowingly" as an ingredient in the
criminal offense, not in the civil offense, so that, if someone has vio-
lated the act, without an intent to do so, he would be a violator subject
to civil penalties.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further discussion regarding the pro-
posed technical amendments?
Without objection, they will be considered en bloc.
All those in favor of the technical amendments, signify by saying
"ave" and those opposed, "no."
The technical amendments are adopted.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, the Animal Welfare Act was first
enacted in 1966 to prevent the theft and the sale or use in research
and laboratories of pet cats and dogs, and also to promote the humane
treatment by dealers and research facilities of cats, dogs, and certain
other laboratory animals.
In 1970. the act's coverage was extended to most warmblooded
animals. Exhibitors and auction sales were subjected to the regulation,
and the Secretary's powers were increased and extended to cover activ-
ities, which burden, obtained, or substantially affect interstate
H.R. 5808, which was introduced by our chairman, Mr. Foley,
addresses two problems not reached by the present law. The first is
the mistreatment of animals in the course of their transportation, par-
ticularly in air transportation. The second is animal fighting ventures,
what we generally speak of as dogfights.
All carriers of animals, and persons handling such animals in con-
nection with their transportation, would be required, under this bill,
to adhere to humane standards established pursuant to the bill under
pain of both civil and criminal procedures.
Also, the bill would make it a crime to promote and sponsor or abet
animal fighting ventures. Several other clarifying and strengthening
amendments were made to the present law.
S. 1941, supported to and passed by the Senate on December 18,
1975, which was a day before adjournment, would also bring trans-
portation of animals under regulations, but it differs from H.R. 5808


in a number of important particulars which urged us in our detailed
comparison between the two bills.
The Senate bill does not deal with animal fighting ventures or dog
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, how far we want to discuss this.
Probably we will save time and direct our attention to the things the
members are most interested in by simply letting us move into the
sections of the bill. Anyone who has a question to any particular sec-
tion, to register or offer amendments to it.
Mr. THONE. I do not have any amendments, Mr. Chairman, but, if
the gentleman from Texas would yield-as you indicate, we are get-
ting into the animal fighting business, the so-called dog fights you
mentioned, Mr. Poage. Frankly, this concerns me just a little.
I notice where the attorney general, or the assistant attorney gen-
eral, Mr. Uhlmann, objected to this section of the bill saying that
traditionally in our form of government the responsibility for the
maintenance of law and order has been lodged with State and local
authorities. Federal jurisdiction has been, for the most part, restricted
to matters directly involving a function of the Federal Government or
otherwise beyond the normal enforcement capability of such State or
local authorities. Mr. Uhlmann goes on with additional comments
regarding his objections to this section.
Dick Feltner, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture also says,
concerning the animal fighting provisions of H.R. 5808:
The department strongly opposes the holding of such events. However, we
do not have the kind of trained manpower and other resources necessary to
prohibit animal fights or arrest the involved persons.
In our view, this is a proper responsibility of state and local law enforcement
agencies, and, with few exceptions, laws exist at that level which would permit
effective dealing with this problem.
Now, I guess my questions of the Livestock and Grains Subcom-
mittee chairman are these. Do you feel that the problem is of such
gravity that we have to involve the Federal Government in this area
where historically we have reserved it to the State and local
Mr. POAGE. When you ask me about my own feelings, I did not in-
clude it in the bill-I introduced the bill some years ago.
Mr. THONE. It is my understanding that this section is not included
in the Senate bill.
Mr. POAGE. It is included in the bill that Chairman Foley introduced
and that the majority of the subcommittee did vote to approve, by
prohibition of dogfighting or not of animal fighting ventures, but of
moving animals in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging
in these dog fights.
I would certainly agree readily with the gentleman that we have
no jurisdiction, no power, to prohibit dogfights in Waco, Tex., if they
are local doges and there is no movement in interstate commerce. But
I do think we have the power to keep someone from shipping the dogs
from Waco to Trenton, N.J., to engage in a dogfight.
That is really what we do in this bill. On page 9, I think you will
find that we do not describe dogfighting per se; we make it an offense
to move animals in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging
in actions which are in violation of the law in almost every State. The

79-917 0 76 6


State of Texas has a law against dogfighting. I grant you that it still
goes on. We do not have enough local constables and sheriffs to stop
it, and I agree with the Department of Agriculture that they do not
have enough probably to stop it. But one of the places that you can
greatly cut down on some thing that most of us think is undesirable
is to catch the big fish who are shipping dogs across State lines. They
are the ones who are really putting the big money into it.
Mr. THONE. I would agree, but section A of section 26 on line 9 that
you cited to me says that it shall be unlawful for any person to know-
ingly sponsor or exhibit any animal in any animal fighting venture,
et cetera. Then you get into this area
Mr. POAGE. Any animal which was moved in interstate or foreign
Mr. THONE. I agree, 100 percent. But won't the Federal official, then,
have to monitor the local fighting events? I agree with you that part
of the evidence would be whether or not those participating animals
had been shipped in foreign or interstate commerce.
The CHAIRMAN. At an earlier time when hearings were held on this
subject, the committee received evidence and testimony indicating
that certain conventions or meetings of fighting animals, particularly
fighting dogs, were held in various parts of the country. This activity
was not centered in any one section, but existed in a variety of States
across the continental United States. These ventures, it is known,
attracted animals and animal handlers who were moving the animals
in interstate commerce.
The act as proposed here would not, of course, deal with a situation
in which animals were not moved in interstate commerce and were
involved in fighting purely within the boundaries of the State, as Mr.
Poage has said. Most often, however, that is not the case. Animals are
transported in interstate commerce in order to participate in many of
these so-called fighting conventions. Furthermore, the mails have been
used for interstate advertising involving the sale of fighting dogs and
the promotion of various animal fighting exhibitions.
There has been testimony that substantial wagering is involved.
In some States penalties for dogfighting are contained in statutes re-
garding general cruelty to animals. In many cases, animal fighting is
regarded as a misdemeanor carrying only a minor fine while the sums
involved in the wagering alone in the more professional fights far ex-
ceed the potential sanctions of these penalties. In fact, we have received
evidence that courts and magistrates have complained publicly that
those convicted of these various misdemeanors are not subject to fines
which the court or magistrate think sufficient to discourage such con-
duct. Fines generally are $100, $200, or $300 at the most.
The dogs themselves are much more valuable than that and the
wagering is much higher.
I think those who have had an opportunity to view any of the films
that have been taken by animal welfare agents investigating dogfight-
ing, would find it to be one of the most vicious barbaric, and inhumane
spectacles anyone could witness. We had color films here of two dogs
that were fought to the death in Flordia. These animals were kept
fighting until one of them was killed by the other.
I find it very difficult to say anything even remotely sympathetic
to the attitudes and motivations of people who would do that.


Animal fighting has probably existed as a sport or diversion as long
as man had inhabited the Earth, and it will no doubt continue. I do
not contend that this legislation will blot it out entirely, but it will
place the strong moral suasion of Federal law against it. In addition,
it would provide an opportunity for Federal-State cooperation in the
gathering of intelligence concerning the movement of animals for the
purpose of fighting since the Federal Government would have jurisdic-
tion over both the mails and interstate commerce.
Mr. THONE. As Dick Feltner said, I think all of us oppose the hold-
ing of these events. I think that ought to be underscored. There is no
question about that.
Let me, however, again cite to the chairman that the Attorney Gen-
eral's office states in their correspondence on the bill, and I quote:
There appears to be no sound basis for the view that Federal intervention in
this area could more effectively handle such investigations or have a more deter.
rent effect in preventing the type of offenses contained in H.R. 5808.
Mr. POAGE. There is a $5,000 fine in this, and that is not true in most
localities. That certainly is going to have a deterrent effect.
Mr. THONE. Unless you have effective local law enforcement, which
we do in our State. We have a State law.
My next question would be, How would either one of you chairmen
envision how this would be enforced by the USDA ?
The CHAIRMAN. There are two main and interrelated activities in-
volved in the prevention of dogfighting, the gathering of intelligence
and actual law enforcement.
These conventions or meetings are usually held in some secrecy.
Previous testimony indicated that they were often held on and at un-
usual hours in order to avoid detection.
I think that the USDA and other Federal agencies could perform
a very important service by cooperating with local law enforcement
officials in the development of information about the movement of
animals and the possible conventions or meetings for dogfighting.
Where a direct violation of the law has occurred, the Department
could certainly seek action on the part of the local U.S. attorney.
I understand that the U.S. Justice Department is not enthusiastic
about the prospect of passing this act. For my own part, I find it very
difficult to accept their notion that the Federal Government could
contribute nothing to deterring this type of conduct. To my knowl-
edge, there are very few, if any, State laws stringent enough to dis-
courage this kind of activity or to involve the resources of the United
States in the detection and prosecution of such offenses.
Mr. THONE. Lastly, there is this, Mr. Chairman. I will again quote
Mr. Feltner in his correspondence. He says:
We do not have the kind of trained manpower and other resources necessary
to prohibit animal fights or arrest the involved persons.
So I assume that that would somehow have to be taken care of.
Mr. POAGE. I feel they would have just as much there as they have
in regard to gambling, an offense in a great many of our States.
Gambling is a violation of local laws in many of our States. Many
States prohibit gambling on horse races. Other States authorize it.
Some States legalize lotteries; other States make it an offense.


The Federal Government protects those States, or at least extends
protection to those States where it is against the law. It is against
the law to use interstate facilities.
Mr. THONE. Isn't dogfighting a type of gambling?
Mr. POAGE. There is gambling in connection with it, as a matter of
fact, with these dogfights, and we know that.
Mr. TILONE. My argument to the chairman, then, would be that we
are already covered here.
Mr. POAGE. We are not covered as far as the fighting is concerned.
We are covered as far as the gambling is concerned. The Federal
Government today does give a great deal of actual protection to States
that prohibit gambling. That is, they go a long way toward discour-
aging gambling.
The CHAIRMAN. The Federal Government has authority with re-
spect to the interstate movement of paraphernalia used in gambling.
Mr. POAGE. Yes. You try to bring paraphernalia in-try to bring
tables into Texas
Mr. THONE. Or dogs?
Mr. POAGE. There is no prohibition against bringing the dogs in.
Mr. THONE. Even if they are going to be used for gambling?
Mr. POAGE. I guess if you can establish that they are going to be used
for gambling. But a roulette table can't be used for anything else. but
gambling. The dogs could. It is a good deal harder to prove that the
dogs were being brought in for gambling purposes than it would to
prove that the roulette table was being brought in for that purpose.
Now for the Department of Justice to try to block this on the basis
that they are not equipped to do anything, it seems to me they might as
well say they cannot enforce any gambling laws or any of the rest of
these various laws that we pass to strengthen the hands of the local
officials, and that is what it does.
The CHAIRMAN. Though my own rather limited experience has been
in the area of criminal prosecution for State offenses, it has been my
observation that there is cooperation between Federal authorities and
local authorities. Federal authorities and investigators often inform
State law enforcement and prosecuting officials of information they
have obtained as a result of their investigations, pertaining to certain
offenses that are against both the United States and against the State.
There are many examples of such crimes including interstate move-
ment of stolen motor vehicles, interstate movement of persons for im-
moral purposes, interstate movement of gambling paraphernalia and
devices, and so on.
Mr. MATHIS. As I recall, we were advised in full committee at some
previous time that in some areas local law enforcement officials were
even engaged in assisting local dogfights, in some instances even to
directing traffic to get to these particular fights.
I have probably been as vocal in the defense of States' rights as any-
one, but I think this kind of law is a threat and would be a deterrent.
I think we ought to pass this bill as it is and forthwith.
Mr. THONE. Down in your area of the country, I hear occasionally
of cockfights. That is not included in this bill. Do you think that
would be advisable?
Mr. MATHIS. I am not sure they are not incorporated. If they are
not, they certainly should be.


Mr. THONE. They are not covered.
Mr. MATHIS. I would be willing to support an amendment-in fact,
to offer such an amendment at the proper time.
Mr. SEBELIUS. Don't endanger the bill with your chickens.
We did discuss the cockfighting issue. If I remember correctly it was
mainly on the basis that we were dealing with warm-blood animals.
We didn't want to proliferate this thing or go beyond the scope. We
just wanted to get a sound piece of legislation.
The thing I want to bring out, and the chairman of the full com-
mittee did touch on it, we have not emphasized it, however, is that we
have in (c) of section 26 a third violation that reads:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the
U.S. Postal Service or any interstate instrumentality for purposes of promoting
That is the real handle we have. The third and the other two make
this thing a much more effective section.
I personally and philosophically hate to insert the Federal Govern-
ment. From what I heard and listened to and saw, I think that between
the three items there we have a tool to branch out with and try to do
some good.
Mr. MATHIS. One of the other members of this committee suggested
it might be an antibusing bill for dogs.
The CHAIRMAN. If that helps any members to support it, I hope they
will nourish that thought.
Mr. SYMMS. I want to direct one question to Mr. Poage.
Did the Department bring over any information as to how many
people they would have to hire for administration of section 26 in the
Mr. POAGE. No; they did not tell us how many people. They did not
even say that they would try to administer it, and I do not know
whether there is anything in this that puts the administration of the
dogfight part on the Department of Agriculture.
Now, it is true that the general part of the bill is administered by the
Department of Agriculture. But this dogfighting part is up to the dis-
rict attorney, as I see it.
Mr. SYMms. I notice line 16 of page 10, (c) indicates that "Necessary
care including veterinary treatment shall be provided while the ani-
mals are so held in custody."
In dogfighting, who is going to take care of that problem and pay
for it?
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose it would depend, at that point, on which
law enforcement agency had custody of the animal.
Mr. POAGE. This is referring to the U.S. Marshal or other authorized
person holding it pending disposal thereof by the court in accordance
with this paragraph, and, I think, care of the prison.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not really think that is going to be a major ex-
pense to the United States.
Mr. KREBS. In line with the comments of the gentleman from Kansas,
it had been my intention to offer an amendment to page 11, lines 24
and 25 to add the term or any live bird to the definition of animal.
Mr. POAGE. What you can do there is to change that definition of
animals where it says mammals. The only question there is whether


you think you will get more good out of it in order to pass it. Whether
you pass it all or whether you pass nothing.
The CHAIRMAN. It is always difficult to completely rationalize the
actions of any legislative body, and I cannot think of a very good rea-
son why a prohibition against animal fighting should not extend to
birds. To be frank, however, I think that if we were to extend the
coverage provided by the bill, we would run into both political and
legislative problems arising from the fact that in some areas of the
United States bird fighting is a cultural tradition, no matter how some
of us may view it.
I do not personally feel that animal fighting, as prescribed by this
bill, reflects extensive involvement of any segment of the populsti--"
of the United States. It is, rather, a sporadic, totally atypical activity
involving small groups of individuals in a so-called sport, which .1
feel they engage in primarily for purposes of gambling and other
wagering activity.
Once we cross the threshold into bird fighting, however, we have the
problem that in certain sections of the United States, this is a cultural
inheritance. Again, whether one questions it, objects to it, or justifies
it, it still occurs; and to irradicate it would involve a very major law
enforcement effort. I just wonder whether it would not be wiser to
take one step at a time.
At this juncture, I would prefer to see us take action to discourage
and eliminate the animal fighting which does not raise these other
Mr. ENGLISH. It has been some time since we had those hearings,
but at that time we discussed this issue. I believe there are some ter-
ritories in the United States where there is no State law against fowl
We have discussed intrastate mailing; some States forbid this and
some States allow it. In various States you get into cultural and tra-
ditional differences. I don't believe, however, that there is any area
in which dogfighting is allowed.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there is any area in which dogfighting
is not either specifically and expressly prohibited or at least included
within more general cruelty statutes. While some of those are not spe-
cifically directed against fighting, others are. Yet it is my impression
that all States prohibit animal fighting under one type of statute or
another; that is, under cruelty to animals statutes or under a specific
antifighting statute.
Mr. KREBS. I am in sympathy with the bill, Mr. Chairman. I do not
in any way want to scuttle it, but I think, as you correctly pointed
out, the difference cannot really be rationalized on any ethnic custom
basis. It is just as cruel in the case of one type of animal as it is in
But, in order to make some progress on this type of legislation, I
will not offer my amendment.
Mr. MELCIIFR. I do not know whether Mr. Krebs is offering his
amendment or not.
Mr. KREBS. I am not, in line with the political advice given by the


Mr. MELCHER. I merely want to state, if I understand the bill cor-
rectly, it would not interfere with the cultural activities-if that is
what it is-within any State. Do I understand that this would deal
only with the mails?
The CHAIRMAN. It would deal with use of the mail and
Mr. MELCHER. I am sorry the gentleman did not offer his amend-
ment. I would have no reason not to vote to limit the so-called cultural
sport in those areas and States that want it. Certainly it should be
prohibited from being transported outside such States.
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, we passed a Federal law a long-time
ago against bullfights. It is just as much a cultural activity as any
of the rest of these fights are.
We have no problem about enforcing it.
I have been reared in an area where you might say the culture might
approve bullfighting, but I never heard of a bullfight taking place in
my lifetime in the State of Texas.
You can stop some of these things. It can be done. But if you try
to do everything at one time, you find you do not achieve any of it.
What we are trying to do here is to stop the most flagrant practices
and hope that we will be successful in it. Whereas, if we tried to stop
it all, we probably would not have very much success.
This thing moves in steps. I introduced the first humane slaughter
bill about 20 years ago, and this committee passed it. Then I intro-
duced the animal bill in 1966, and this committee passed it. We have
been taking it by steps, and this bill goes a little further.
I do not think you could make everybody accept every humane
practice at this time, but I think that you can take it in steps. The
question is, I am sure, how far can you take it? I frankly doubt if
there is a possibility of taking it as far as the bill undertakes to, not
that I object to what the bill does.
Mr. KPEBS. Would you tell the full committee where this opposition
is coming from to any inclusion of birds in this piece of legislation?
Mr. POAGE. The southern part of the country, probably, and probably
some from southern California, and particularly Puerto Rico, of
course. I suppose you are having some of it down in Florida where
you have a substantial Cuban population.
Mr. SEBELTUS. The whole bill is the Animal Welfare Act. Birds
aren't animals, and I hope that, even though we all oppose cockfight-
ing as a promotion, we would not add this extra thing. It is like grab-
bing for one more thing and giving problems to the bill. I think that is
the feeling to the author here. We would have to make a lot of amend-
ments if you are going to technically include birds in an animal welfare
Mr. SYMMS. I am still concerned about this problem of how many
people it is going to take. On line 22 of page 9, it says-
The Secretary
and I assume that means the Secretary of Agriculture-
or any other person authorized by him shall make such investigations as the
Secretary deems necessary to determine whether any person has violated or is
violating any provision of this section .



I am not an attorney, but I assume that means you have got to go out
to a dogfight to find out whether the dogs were shipped across State
Mr. POAGE. That does nothing except to give the Secretary a little
authority, if he wants to exercise it. It says such as the Secretary may
determine is necessary, and, if the Secretary does not determine that
that thing is necessary, that no law has been violated, the Secretary
does not have to determine that anything is necessary to be done. Any
siiseqentSecretary can g
subsequent Secreta can go just as far as he wants to go.
So I do not see that it imposes a thing on the Secretary. It does give
the Secretary some power, if he wants to exercise it. But as far as bur-
d(lening the Secretary by having to take over and do a lot of things he
does not want to do, it does not require him to do anything.
Mr. SYMMS... I guess my problem with this section is basically that
we know we are going to have to hire a certain amount of people to
work with the Department of Agriculture or some department.
Mr. POAGE. No, we know we are going to; we do not know that we
have to.
Mr. SYM-1s. To enforce-
The CHA xIR1A.\. I direct the gentleman's attention to page 10 of the
bill which says that the Secretary may obtain the assistance of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, or
other law enforcement agencies of the United States, and State and
local governmental agencies, in the conduct of such investigations
under cooperative agreements with such agencies.
I think the chairman of the subcommittee has correctly defined the
legal requirements of the act. The Secretary is empowered but not
required to provide such resources as he finds necessary.
Mr. POAGE. I want to ask the gentleman from Idaho how much it is
costing the Secretary to enforce the bullfighting law?
You have got facts and figures. That is not speculative. That is the
present. How much money did the United States spend last year to
enforce the bullfighting law? It is very similar to this.
Mr. SY.rMs. It is a good question. Maybe nothing. I do not know.
Mr. POAGE. I don't think they did.
Mr. SYMIrMS. I am not downplaying the problem of dogfights, but
there are other things going on like people placing bombs in La
Guardia Airport and the disappearance of an official.
In my State low salaries are one of the major problems we have in
keeping good people in local law enforcement where the action is.
One of the reasons we always run into is that the Federal Govern-
ment seems to be taking all the funds so there is nothing left to pay
local sheriffs.
It looks to me like we are heading in the direction of more federali-
zation of law enforcement-or a higher elitism, if you will-with
respect to law enforcement. It seems to be involving the Federal Gov-
ernment in something which should be a local responsibility.
Maybe it will not cost that much. However, we are getting the Fed-
eral Government involved in dogfighting. I do not think anyone ar-
gues thnt. I don't think any Secretary of Agriculture is going to want
The question of what to do with dogs that are fighting brings you
into the matter of veterinarians and all.

I would be happy if this section were out of it.
Is there any law against bullfighting?
Mr. POAGE. Let me explain that; as far as I know there is no Fed-
eral law against bullfighting per se. That is, if you grow the bulls in
Idaho and fight them in Idaho, do not advertise them across State
lines, I think you can conduct a bullfight unless Idaho has got a law
against it. But you cannot advertise it across the State line and you
cannot move the bulls across the State line to engage in the fight.
The Federal Government has not gone so far as to say just how you
can handle things in Idaho, but it is hard to conduct it without getting
something across the State lines.
Mr. SY.iis. It is hard enough, sometimes, to get letters across the
State line.
Mr. MuRRAY. As far as we know, there is not any Federal bullfight-
ing law which prohibits the combat between two bulls. It would strike
me that this is the bullfight bill, because this not only applies to dogs
but it applies to mammals of which bulls are bovine mammals. This
bill would prevent fights between bulls in interstate commerce and
have the Secretary supervise interstate bullfights along with inter-
state dogfights.
Mr. BOR. I do not think this bill is involved in the question of bull-
fighting because an animal fighting venture is defined as a fight be-
tween two animals. An animal is defined as excluding man. The tra-
ditional type of bullfight where you have a bull and a man in an arena
would, as I see it, not be covered by this bill.
Mr. MURRAY. If you look at the language at the bottom of page 11
it is between animals or between men. The words "except man" were
put in by the last Congress because of the concern that we would ban
prizefighting where two men, being mammals, were in a ring fighting
against each other. Not where a man was fighting an animal, but
where two men were fighting each other.
Mr. BOR. Staff did discuss the possibility of a picador's courses,
The CHAIRMAN. Does counsel have a uniform opinion as to whether
the act would bar the fighting of an animal and a man, in the generic
sense of the term man.
Mr. MURRAY. I guess it is available for construction.
Mr. BOR. I think we agreed to disagree on this issue.
On page 11, the term "animal fighting venture" is defined as mean-
ing a fight between at least two animals. At the bottom of the pnae,
the term "animals" is defined to mean any live dog or mammal, except
man. It would appear that an animal fighting venture would not
include a fight between an animal and man but rather between two
animals each of which is not a man.
Mr. THONE. Counsel, would you tell me whether or not this was
thorourhlv reviewed on the Senate side, and why they excluded
animal fighting ventures over there?
Mr. IMHoF. I think the question was probably considered a separate
issue. Animal fighting is apparently not within the jurisdiction of the
Senate Committee on Commerce. I believe Mr. Weicker felt that they
should treat it separately and that it be made the subject of separate

79-917 0 76- 7


I am not sure ah to the reason for that. I believe there is a repre-
sentative from Mr. Weicker"s office here this morning who might be
able to respond directly to the question.
Mr. Weicker recognized it as a problem, but he felt that probably
he did not have a sufficient record at the time to address it in his
bill. That is my understanding.
Mr. BALDUS. Mr. Chairman, is this Senate report close enough to
the House bill so that it may be used as a guide to answer some of
the questions?
The CHAIRMAN. No, it is not. The Senate bill is substantially differ-
ent from the House bill as reported by the House subcommittee and
is, therefore, not a good guide.
Mr. THONE. To bring this to a head, in that I guess I started all
this. I would move that section 15 of the bill be deleted. Am I correct,
MAr. Chairman? Do I have the right section?
The CHAIR MAN. It is section 15 of the bill, section 26 of the law,
page 8, line 24. That is where the "animal fighting ventures" language
Mr. MURRAY. It terminates on line 10 of page 12.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska has moved to strike
section 15 of the bill.
Is there any discussion on this dogfighting section?
Mr. PEYSER. I am totally opposed, frankly, to the dogfighting that
goes on anywhere in this country, but we have not discussed the trans-
portation issue at all.
I am looking at these reports from the Post Office, the Agriculture
Department, the CAB, the FAA. Everybody is concerned about the
problem of transportation. How are they going to handle this situa-
tion? We haven't really discussed that.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further discussion?
If not, all those in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Thone, will, when their names are called, respond aye.
All opposed, no.
The clerk will call the role.
The rollcall vote follows:
Ayes: Representatives Thone and Symms.
Nays: Representatives Poage, Jones of North Carolina, Melcher,
Mathis, Bercland, Richmond, Nolan, Baldus, Krebs, Harkin (by
proxy), Bedell, McHugh, English, Fithian (by proxy), Thornton,
Wampler, Sebelius, Heckler, Grassley, Moore, Foley, de la Garza,
Litton, Kelly (by proxy).
The C.HAIRMANt. The clerk will report the result of the rollcall.
The CLERK. Two ayes. Twenty-four nays.
The CHAIRMAN. Two ayes and twenty-four nays.
The clerk will report the number of votes cast by proxy.
The CLERK. Three were cast by proxy.
The CHAMIRMAN. There being 2 ayes, 24 nays, and 3 by proxy, the
amendment is not agreed to, and a quorum is present.
At this time the Chair would suggest that the committee recess.
It is the intention of the Chair to set aside tomorrow at 10 a.m. for
further consideration of the )ending legislation.
The Committee on Agriculture will stand recessed, to meet tomor-
row at 10 a.m.
[Whereupon, the meeting was recessed at 12 noon.]


Washington, D.C.
The committee met at 10:13 a.m. pursuant to notice, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman)
Present: Representatives Poage, Jones of North Carolina, Jones of
Tennessee, Bergland, Rose, Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver,
Baldus, Krebs, Bedell, McHugh, Fithian, Jenrette, D'Amours, Thorn-
ton, Wampler, Sebelius, Thone, Symms, Grassley, Hagedorn, and
Staff present: Robert M. Bor and Hyde H. Murray, counsels; Wil-
liam A. Imhof, and John E. Hogan, associate counsels; Nick Ashmore,
staff assistant; John Baize and Alan Gray, staff consultants, Subcom-
mittee on Livestock and Grains; Glenda Temple and Susan Bell, staff
The CHIAIRMAN. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order.
The gentleman from Nebraska makes a point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The Clerk will call the roll.
Responding to the rollcall were Representatives Poage, Bergland,
Rose, Richmond, Weaver, Krebs, Bedell, McHugh, Fithian, Wampler,
Sebelius, Thone, Symms, Moore, Foley, Jones of Tennessee, Breckin-
ridge, Baldus, Hagedorn, Jenrette, D'Amours, and Nolan.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, while the Clerk is computing the
results of the quorum call, the committee will proceed to consider the
legislation before it.
Are there any amendments to the bill H.R. 5808?
Mr. KREBS. Mr. Chairman, am I recognized for the purpose of an
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. KREBS. You may recall my withdrawal of a proposed amend-
ment yesterday in the interest of possibly expediting the passage of
this bill.
However, I have since found out that, if I did not offer the amend-
ment, somebody else would, either here or on the floor. So I felt we
mi.rht as well get this issue before this committee.
With that in mind, Mr. Chairman. I will offer an amendment which
relates to page 11, lines 24 and 25, where it defines the term "animal,"
and ask that the words "or any live bird" be added to it.


As I briefly indicated yesterday, and I think other members of the
committee also indicated yesterday, the subject of cockfights is one that
is outlawed in, I think, a vast majority of the States. There are appar-
ently a couple of States in which this practice is not outlawed.
I happen to feel that it is just as cruel and barbaric as dogfighting,
and I am directly familiar with neither. I see no reason or rationale
behind prohibiting the transportation of dogs and other animals for
purposes of fights, and not outlawing or prohibiting the transporta-
tion of live birds for the same purpose.
It is with this in mind that I offer this amendment.
Mr. BALDUS. In a friendly spirit, I think I would vote for the
In a friendly spirit, I would like to inquire about its germaneness.
Since the purpose of the bill is the humane treatment of some animals,
and perhaps that would be a question of the Chair and the counsel as
to what would likely be-I am not sure what the procedure is here-
The CHAIRMAN. In a similar friendly spirit, I would have to advise
the gentleman that, although I would like to find that the amendment
is not germane to the bill, I do not think my parliamentary powers
extend that far, and I would have to rule that the amendment is ger-
mane. It is possible that the title needs adjustment.
We can inquire of counsel for their judgment in the matter.
A parliamentary inquiry has been broached as to whether or not
the amendment is germane to the bill.
Mr. MURRAY. For what it is worth, the animal welfare statute does
include a certain class of birds. The definition of animal in the statute
is broad enough to include chickens and other birds.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair interrupts to inform the committee that
22 members responded when their names were called. A quorum is
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, while counsel is checking, I will point
out the practice. I think that is what is involved here.
I think most all of the members theorically would like to include
birds. I don't know of anyone here in this committee who would con-
done cockfights.
I would like to get some of the things that this bill gives us. Frankly
this bill goes a little further than I thought was advisable merely
from the standpoint of getting something passed. This bill reaches a
long way. I do not know if we can grasp that far. I think that this
amendment is going to jeopardize a substantial body of reform that
all of us are for, by trying to grasp too much.
I would rather take a part of something than to get all of nothing.
I think that is our choice here. It is that we can make a very substan-
tial step if we will pass this bill.
On the other hand, if we try to include everything, if we make it
a Federal offense to step on an ant-which undoubtedly occasions
great pain to that ant-if we go to those extremes, we are not going
to get anything. And we are going to leave the dogfighting and we
are going to leave the transportation all in the same mess it is in
Let's try to make a step. Let's try to do something. We have a bill
here. It doesn't prevent all cruelty. There is not one of you that is
going to live long enough for the Federal Government to prevent all


cruelty to animals. But we are making a big step and we are going to
protect a lot of animals if we can pass this bill. And I think we can
pass this bill.
But if you load it down with those things that people do not like
to vote against but know that it isn't going to pass, you just jeopardize
any type of progress whatever. It seems to me that, regardless of the
technical rulings on it, we are faced with a purely factual proposition.
The CHAIRMAN. I want to concur with.evervthing that the sub-
committee chairman has said. I hope the members will be persuaded
to accept a somewhat less than perfect standard set forth in this bill
in the interests of achieving what the chairman indicates is a substan-
tial step forward in the interests of animal protection. Is there any
further discussion?
Mr. SyM1us. We have already decided here that we are going to
have a czar of dogfighting in the Federal Government. Maybe the
same czar could take care of the chicken fighting.
I know a lot of people who have chickens-Easter chickens for the
children. Maybe the humane question is the same. I think we ought
to include the chicken fighting in the bill. I think Mr. Krebs ought to
be commended for the amendment.
Mr. KREBS. Having given this matter some further thought, it
would appear that, regardless of which side of the issue we are on-
and I tend to agree with the gentleman from Texas that we are
probably all on the same side. We cannot escape this issue by reaching
a decision here one way or another in this committee because the
issues will be brought up on the floor again. I think we might as well
face the reality that, if someone on the floor feels this bill is to en-
cumbering and wants to knock out the birds, he certainly can do so.
Mr. SEBELIWS. I sat through the hearings with Chairman Poage
and I would like to associate myself with his remarks and your re-
marks in an attitude that-let us get what we can get this time.
Mr. BALDUS. On the question I raised earlier, can we get an opinion
from counsel ?
Mr. MuRRAY. It is a close question. I do not know whether it is ger-
mane or not. A thread can be established that it is germane on the
grounds that the statute says that the term "animal"-that is, enu-
merated ones, dogs, cats, monkeys, and so forth-includes any other
warm-blooded animal designated by the Secretary. Birds are warm-
blooded animals. They are not mammals, but they are warm-blooded
animals. By regulation, apparently the Department excludes birds
from the designated list. They say birds are not included.
So the way the statute sits, I think a germane argument could be
sustained, and in the rule of germaneness it sometimes gets pretty
fuzzy as to what is or isn't germane.
The thrust of the bill is to provide humane care for laboratory
animals in zoos, and pets, and animals of that nature. So I would
come out on the side that it is germane. That is an opinion. Maybe
my peers have a different idea ?
Mr. BOR. We agree it is germane.
Mr. BALDUS. I find the arguments of the chairman of the subcom-
mittee persuasive, even though I would prefer to vote for the amend-
ment, to preserve the bill.


The CHAIRM3AN. In regard to the question of germaneness, the Chair
feels that the will of the committee should be allowed the widest
possible latitude when deciding whether or not something is germane.
The Chair, therefore, would overrule such a point of order if it were
The question occurs on the amendment of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia. Mr. Krebs, adding the words "or any live bird."
All those in favor of the amendment, say aye and those opposed, no.
Mr. SY.M-is. I would like a rollcall.
The CHAIRM.AN. A rollcall is demanded.
Those members who support the amendment will answer aye when
their names are called. Those opposed., no. The clerk will call the roll.
The rollcall follows:
Ayes: Representatives Nolan, Weaver, Krebs, Bedell (by proxy),
Jenrette, D'Amours (by proxy), Thone (by proxy), Symms, Grassley,
Hagedorn, Moore, Kelly (by proxy).
Nays: Representatives Poage, Jones of North Carolina, Jones of
Tennessee (by proxy), Bergland, Rose, Breckinridge, Baldus,
McHugh, English (by proxy), Thornton, Wampler, Sebelius, Foley,
Vigorito (by proxy), Litton (by proxy).
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, before the vote is announced, I have been
told that Mr. Melcher would probably vote aye on this, and since he
has not really instructed me, I will withdraw his vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Withdraw Mr. Melcher's vote.
The clerk will report the result of the rollcall.
The CLERK. Twelve ayes; fifteen nays.
Mr. KREBS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. I did not hear
what Mr. Melcher's vote was.
The CHAIRMAN. His negative vote was withdrawn, and he is no
longer recorded.
Mr. SYMMS. I make a point of order. There is no quorum present
on that vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The vote is 12 ayes and 15 nays.
The clerk will report the number of votes cast by proxy.
The CLERK. Eight votes were cast by proxy.
The CHAIRMAN-. A quorum was not present on the vote.
The committee will recess until 2 p.m.
[Whereupon, the committee recessed at 10:45 a.m., to meet again at
The CHAIRMAN-. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order.
The clerk will call the roll.
Responding to the rollcall were Representatives Poage, Jones of
North Carolina, Melcher, Bergland, Bowen, Breckinridge, Richmond,
Weaver, Baldus, Krebs. Harkin, Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, Fi-
thian, Jenrette, Thornton, Wampler, Findley, Symms. Jeffords, Grass-
ley, Foley, Sebelius. D'Amours. Heckler, Hagedorn, English.
The CHAIRMAN-. The clerk will report the result of the quorum call.
The CLERK. Twenty-seven members answered when their names
were called.


The CHAIRMAN. How is Mr. English reported?
The CLERK. He is not reported.
The CHAIRMAN. Record him present.
The CLERK. Twenty-eight.
The CHAIRMAN. The question now reoccurs on the amendment of
the gentleman from California, Mr. Krebs.
All of those in favor of his amendment, which adds the words "or
any live bird" to the provision of the act preventing animal fighting,
will, when their names are called, respond aye. Those opposed, no.
The clerk will call the roll.
The rollcall follows:
Ayes: Representatives Jones of North Carolina, Melcher, Mathis
(by proxy), Breckinridge, Weaver, Krebs, Harkin, Bedell, English,
Fithian, Jenrette, D'Amours, Thone (by proxy), Symms, Johnson (by
proxy), Madigan (by proxy), Kelly (by proxy), Grassley, Hagedorn,
Moore (by proxy).
Nays: Representatives Poage, Vigorito (by proxy), Bergland, Lit-
ton (by proxy), Richmond (by proxy), Baldus, Hightower, McHugh,
Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Heckler, Jeffords, Foley, Bowen,
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report the result of the rollcall.
The CLERK. Twenty ayes; sixteen nays.
The CHAIRMAN. There being 20 ayes and 16 nays, the amendment is
agreed to.
Are there other amendments to the bill?
Mrs. HECKLER. I have no amendment at this time, but I would like
to inquire about what consideration the subcommittee gave to the
issues of the use of the animals in experimental processes by Govern-
mental agencies. I am specifically thinking about the use of beagles,
and so on. What consideration did the committee give to such abuse?
The CHAIRMAN. The care and conditions of laboratory animals are
not addressed in this particular piece of legislation except where they
relate to transportation in interstate commerce. At an earlier time the
Congress passed legislation recommended by this committee dealing
specifically with the treatment of laboratory animals.
This legislation was designed primarily to focus on two areas of
concern. One was the interstate transport, largely by air, of animals
for use in research as well as for other purposes. Secondarily, it deals
with the question of animal fighting.
Mrs. HECKLER. So the committee gave no consideration to the uses
that have been so well documented and reported in relationship to the
use of animals, and especially dogs, by Government agencies?
Mr. POAGE. About a year or two ago, the committee passed rather
comprehensive legislation on that subject. Since that subject was not
a part of this bill, the hearings were not on the bill passed 2 years
ago but on the bill that is before us now.
This bill, as the chairman pointed out, relates primarily to the
transportation of animals and to the use of animals in fighting.
The CHAIRMAN. Has the gentlelady introduced legislation with re-
spect to that particular subject matter?

Mrs. HECKLER. No; but I was considering preparing an amendment,
Mr. Chairman. I thought that the basic law was the Animal Welfare
Acts to which Mr. Poage referred earlier. These amendments did not
deal with that specific subject. I wondered whether or not any con-
sideration was given to it.
The CHAIRMIAX. I think the legislation does deal with the subjects
of the Animal Welfare Act and animal welfare in a broader sense.
The focus, however, is largely on the handling and care of animals
during the transportation process.
Mr. BOR. The act, as it now exists, has a provision directed at labora-
tory facilities that are maintained by Government agencies. The act
now provides that any department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States, having laboratory animal facilities, shall comply with
the standards promulgated, by the Secretary for research facilities.
And any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
exhibiting animals shall also comply with these standards.
These provisions are currently contained in the law. It would appear
that the problem that exists is one that could be taken care of within
the confines of existing law without the need for any amendments to
the act.
It seems to be mainly a question of enforcement.
Mrs. HECKLER. Mr. Chairman. I do not have an amendment to pre-
pare at this time, but I wanted to know what the committee had done.
It is my understanding that these provisions are not observed and
not enforced, and abuse is very extensive and has been well
I certainly would consider, perhaps, writing an amendment to be
considered when we vote on the floor.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments?
If not, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poage, moves that the bill
H.R. 5808, as amended, be reported to the House with the recommen-
dation that it do pass.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Those op-
posed will respond no.
The ayes appear to have it.
The ayes have it and the bill is reported.
The Chair will note for the record that a quorum is present.
Mr. BOR. The Senate has adopted a bill having a number S. 1941,
and there is a question as to whether the bill that we would report to
the floor should be an amendment in the nature of a substitute for
this bill, or whether you would prefer to have that done on the floor
after action is taken to adopt this.
[The bill S. 1941 follows:]


$S. 1941

JUNE 13 (legislative day, JUNE 6),1975
Mr. WrEIcKER (for himself, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MATHIAS, and Mr. GRIFFIrN)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referrlt to
the Committee on Commerce
DECEMBER 18 (legislative day, DECEMBER 15), 1975
Reported by Mr. WEICKER, with an amendment
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
DECEMBER 18 (h'gidative day, DEM'rTBEr 15), 1975
Considered, amended, read the third time, and pa s,-d

To increase the protection afforded animals in transit and to as-
sure the humane treatment of animals, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tive.s of the United States of America in Con!rf-js.. assembled,

3 That thin Act ma bi Cit414 as t040 "Animial Wolfare Improvo

4 ment Act of 1975".
5 SEC. 2. The Act of Aiigiit 21, 1066, an amended (7
6 U4S.C. 24 3 t1 et seq.) iH andld by infiortig l before the ii-mt

7 ,.oct..n tl.i.r. .: "ThI,.t tliV A c.t hi i, .>. ui(.-'d t, I e A iiii..i
8 "elf,, Ac44 )L

9 So. 3 Section 1 -f 1l( [ Animil W mld Ir 1A I W P1i iieIIde1d
10 (7 ILS.C. 211) iV amend4d by inserting after "treatment




1 -w cch .,-,r,,l, by" an,, 1 -r.- "per-sons ,or ^,.,i., f-tioii" . 1

2 t"rm %ommon caOMoi or by".R

3 SEC. 4. Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act, a- amonddJ

4 (74.8.C. 2132) iamendod

5 (1) by striking out subfsections (e) vaid (d) there'

6 of and inserting i lieu the following,

7 (c) The term Mcommerce means trade, traffic, trans

8 porta tion, communication, or exchiange-

9 "(1) between a place in a State and any place outa

10 B'do of such State; or

I raffle, traw:portation,

communication, or exchange dcc erlbe~d in paragraph (1)

of this subsection.

"(d) The term 'State' moansr a State of the United

thve Uitict of

the Commonwealth of

1G Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or

17 any other territory or

ssion of the United States; .

(2) by amending gsbfioction (1) thteroof by string

out the tcrm "affecting commerce" and insortig in lieu

tliftrftf "in eonmi~ifrnt";

(3) by amending mubsection


Esi rib iiiig out theo term "afT-foctin'g cwiiinoreu" and inserting
0: "0f ,, f-.,",,' n, ,, ,- r,,

in lieu thereof "in commerce";-(B)1

(C) triking u

'ocpt 0 S ICom 1 arn er,' ) ye trl
out, JAb utiicli term excludeos anyi r-'t vtorc cxccpt~ SUChI


ti (2)-which affeets ti-fdey

3 S s.a tes,

columbia .



1 ti re wlitirh rtell; any a it tial to at rert'anrvb fiicil'itv, ;.i '

2 exit iti ii,' or :1 delelr," .mnd i wu iiiig in lieu there' f '',
1; .. ,1,Ar.1,,01

3 alP termi (]i' > I-IIf i niii( l1 iA i m l 'y w-pcd'n1r uf

4 Hiii:, 141-1 i teti I if Stfri'dirv;')

7 inserting in lieu thereof the fLulhim-: "or ah i pet. T1ie

8 tenit tcin1(.'>' olid V vvi i ri:4)Cpot to any iiC ile ni
myill li

9 24114 with a r->tWil pt .ton oll with zi any live or

10 deod 1ird. ThI t i do Io- t in lJ .. ; ndJ IB .- y

11 wtriking outm "and' at th0 wud t 4lr'eol

12 (5)) by amiendingp riiliieeotiii (I) tlierct'f by Lvtrihuit

13 out ", wilcli wevre p.1irc4iiapd i 1muterce or thw e in-
... ... -f; -.. ,,- A e".

14 teIdd di tri i i f % r.-Wi >i ctc tier or will

15 affect coinierc' irtig in liU tLaow cf "'in conI

16 4c aJ

17 (6-by adding Jt thX and tOler ef the fi)11owing

18 two nw U ctii
19 "il The. toriw mtr' taider' n'illir. a ny Lr -m
10 ..,..,1 I,:_ - I.. t ,, 1 .. ..1 ; .... ., ,I I \ .,

20 'who is engaged i any bipie in comilieree which invot'lv'eI

21 i whole or in part, receiig or intaining Cstody of iI

22 ma.s in connection withI teir (ra1porttion in ,i ....rcC,

23 xpt that the torm not iiTr dlr, a rFOrArli

24 facility, an exhibitor, A ho1)l.y breder of ag or (nFtp, an

I5 oprator of an i lcion slei, a PoniWilo carrier1 a -rw-goin



1 exempted f.rom I I dI A io of .R 4. I...a fum ili.t1 1y rPga I

Aor nepion exc-lude from th1 awfiuition of 'exhihitin-.;

3 -an

(j) The twrnit common owaer orIxown the owner or

Sprio, which i engaged i, atho d to ngag in the

7 buoitiess of transporting *ny aniaL. for hire or any person

8 designated as puc1i by the Secretary of Tm.wIIpoti:tiowI, thoe

9 Jn-terstutc Commerce Commni2ion, the Civil Aeroauitmtie

10 Board, or tho Federal Mlaritime Cominhii~ion/..

11 SEC. 6. Section 3 of thie Animal Welfm a A 1t as

12 amended (7 I .S.C. 21323) ig amended by inserting after

13 "his facilitica" and before "comply' in the first proviso

14 thercof the following: ", including anR t1.inal facilities

15 -1oqd LAy pip], :pporson/

136 6C. G3. 1etioiis 1, 11, And 12 of the Ainmil Welfare

17 Act, -1as amonde d (7 U.S.C. 2131, 2111, and 21112) ar

18 amendjd by strikiiig out "tiafecting comncree" and iwugrtujw

19 ill lieu thereof "in commerce".

20 SEc. 7. Section a of the Animii Welfare Act, as

21 *a'icmidcd i 3>3(7 U^.S.C. 21 ')-ic. aimcide 1by iim~crlimigj aftem

22 )'ViicU1 Fell fli'14itv' aK mullefore "and avery'' t1m f :Uuwi iig:

^ov'crv~ iiteniiiodi:~to 1 la ji1lcer, every Colimio c110 r nor".hT

2 Sl.c. 1. Stct-on 9 of t,,. A 1iml. W, fare- Act, a- 16nd

^ ed (7 1.S.' 219), r anded lv i...crt 11 afPOr "dler,",
-: ;I ',,. -, _" ,/ ,,.- 4



.1 ,the first time the ,em appears the folloing: .an i.t.r/mJd

2-Ate ha~ndler, aa- Idmo llrir the seeodtm the wr

3 appears, the following;

6 amended S1% 2440),-

a i-n 11 a r. ,~1 1 ~ n flrn tix C.,. C. flW

is amended to read as follows :

7 "SEC. 1. iDealers, rgseaIch facilities, intermediate han-

8 1dlers, common carriers, and exhibitors shall ma~ke- and

9 retail for sucli reasonable period of time and on S4uch form,;

10 A8 the Secretar-y m1ay pr-escribe such r-eeord4s t rcspee^te

11 th purchase, sale transportation, identification, receiving,

12 handling, delivering, axd previous animal Q.

13 the Sec'etary may proscribe. Such records shall bo made

14 valbli b the SkeretVarypi to :nootdper-sons at-All v"A-

15 sonbAhle times, for purposes of examination and copying.7

16 SEc. 10. Section 13 of th Animal Welfare Act, ag

17 amended (7 TT..C. 2143), is amended
18 (1 LA; amendingo the ti tle thereof to read tis flo


20 (2) 0bA d4intn t1o proison teof AsA wi4-

21 RAction IA Ia A f sipcL Rectionp b insertingx Iii) "-~i. e

22 diatly before the first sentence thereof;

23 (3) by .amending, tlhe second sentence of subsection

24 im. thereof, A dstAnoadted bnd tLieo atiln by incd;e"otihg

25 ofte. ^.uh =tadards" and before "shall include" the

SE.. P. Ise'tion 10 of the AnimNlHl. WI.AJelfare Aet, as

u, ~ ~ L, ,= .= , u == i ,, = -=
























allowingg : "a apply with respet to the fadlitia. of

ANiY POR-10on4 licP1rna11d uor. this Aet anad, Fespoeet to

aniy terminal facilities used by a oommou icaurioF .subject

to this Act and";

W 1)by Aadinge Ole follow*n n alw gmib;occ4 At the

gootion -l ;.'*

e~d 0i
1411, T14A Slprawfrw hl ALAIIiugt ptAflndra1; tob'gov

114 1or-Anvnoprtationj in QowUmer-e and the handling cPn?,L.t

and treatment in connection therew'.ith, of any onimnalg as to

which such transportation is pched or ordered by a

a.n-'- ; rogo .'e. fonility.rin owner of an po -An xib,-itr,

an operator of a auction sale, a department, agency, o

i~snio~tli~yof the Fedoral Goverament aor- any State o

1141col vover-nmentj or awy qtor- uorwon. S 1,1pl rstanrdnRq Rll

;4pply to all eir cariers and other common carriers and to

interF;diate handlers, with respect to the transportation in

commerce of animals. Such standnrdf $ha:4 include, but need

not Lh limited to, minimum requirement with ,o,-et to

containers) feed, water, rest, ventilation, tr-iporature, air

presfire, handling, v:eteinar' care, nnd other fnetor3 deter

*niined by thi Secrmlary to be relevant to 01Airing tIo +I-

mnane frgatmont of animals in the course of their tiransporta

tion in pommwcpo. Such standards may proha i1)itile trnuf

portion in commerce of dogs, cati, and other designatR d



1 anmiaal that isre les tLkila eight weeb of Ige (or }1s t 1i4i

2 1-age a@ the--aJ

3 ,, po,.hi sc,, ,,Mpo.

.4- ie accompanied by a orifto iu by a ion

znediixtohattdk~a or 'coidmnion jpa~Vdr i oirnsmgd.,. halth, and in

,uoh condition that) ilt. ien rdaumtihy 4id dxpccl6 tqnwit6
ably. wiho

I..,mi 1uv IM 19 "0 -

SE 11. Section

15 of tbe Aniniwjtl Welfare

11 amended (7 U.S.. 2145) is amended by adding the folio

12 ing noW subsection at the. end thereof if

14- Niqcjia-r.11 ,hl eopsahl -And *opni wl'the PccfrctQ ;

15 of Tiansportotioa'!I with roiptct to tho htiyhmert and on

16 foreomonfc of hdmano standards fo1 animal& i the eourqco f

17 their transportation in commdrcc 'dhd n tormiwd, facilities

18 prior to and iftar 'Aoih t. potf


19 ^iith ri~pect to'trf~nanbrtavioii iy alr onHid bdcoio- coffceti^

20*t 'iihout Vtb app 4imnfili f ofa: Bcrotapy


24 -fliht iirfoty. T4 Schtiry -rmr',;tdiei igi authorizd&

2a arnd'difeiled lo take

sr I~ I

2'3 Secreferir in' anyIILLU 'atr rlat,".w,-g tfIa&- tgaa *rttoi
24 animal in commerce. The "ntert 4 ""ommore o-mii

25 the 0 Aml Aeronautics Board, and the Federal Maritime



+ If


T -


<< 11e 1-1- I-naa -14a 1-L addition to oh ef


. '. t 0 St. -and.a.-"d



,1 ni jmission, *to the cxtefttof t-heir reoipcotivo 'awru1 author

'iies h l tak" .. 1 s tot

3 7onforce) or reinforce any' dotomination by the Secretary

4;wi tL roapo to pRaon lmhimo toi rigulntion LA; it, inctlm-

-5: 6w Lilt lifted t Of A
.6 "- SE" 2 Sootion 1.(a, ) of the Animal Wvlfaro Act, a,

7 'amoeaode (7...16) omnd* '
8 (1) by inserting "itermediate liandlcr," ommon

9 arrir," in the first scntno thereof after th term

10 "exhibitor", bach time euch term appears n such

11 eceeo
12 121 by striking out "or."' War 4 ;a the thi..
13 sentence thereof;

i^ Lx () h msrtingc hoforc tho pwerd At tho end al thi
15 third entenc- thereof bthe following: or (5) cuoh
16 anial is held by an intermediate handler r by a

17 ..on .a .rir"; and

0 ~t _. .(4)'.,adding the-following,. no on+o a h

19- nd thereof: "It shall e- the duty of United State

u atorneysto prosecute aW criminal violatiolas of this o
21: reported by the Secretary and to initiate civil nations to

22 -
2 cover all iil nal a d an rt t
. ,,;rtr1Y, OF w ,io-o-me to th ,,r- nt.,,, or RAowldgPA F