[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 14, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1239-E1240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


USDA INSPECTOR GENERAL'S JANUARY 1995 REPORT ``APHIS ENFORCEMENT OF THE 
                          ANIMAL WELFARE ACT''

                                 ______


                       HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 13, 1995
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, as a long-time supporter of 
animal welfare legislation and as one of the Members of Congress 
intimately involved in the 1985 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act 
[AWA], I have a keen interest in promoting the humane treatment of 
animals as well as ensuring the strength and enforceability of the 
Animal Welare Act.
  After an initial review of the USDA inspector general's January, 
1995, report, ``Animal and Plant Health Inspector Service (APHIS) 
Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act,'' I am deeply concerned with the 
Agency's ability and willingness to adequately monitor and reasonably 
ensure the humane care and treatment of animals. The inspector general 
stated, ``APHIS does not have the authority . . . to effectively 
enforce the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act.'' While I am 
pleased to see this unambiguous statement, I am greatly troubled by the 
USDA's seemingly willful neglect of the law. It took APHIS over 6 years 
to promulgate regulations based on the amendments to the act that were 
enacted in 1985. While this delay in responding to the requirements of 
the amendments was in my view unacceptable, I find it even more 
disconcerting that the problems associated with the enforcement of this 
act have not abated.
  Lack of adequate resources is part of the problem associated with 
APHIS's ability to adequately monitor and inspect animals and 
facilities. In the past I have testified before the Appropriations 
Committee in favor of increased funding for enforcement of the AWA. I 
realize that Congress shares the burden of responsibility for not 
allocating the appropriate resources needed to fully implement this 
law.
  More importantly, however, the inspector general's report indicates 
that APHIS has been neglecting its statutory obligations and has 
renewed facility licenses even when cited violations--past and 
present--had not yet been corrected. Additionally, APHIS is not 
inspecting research facilities before issuing the initial 
registrations, therefore noncompliance with the act may go unnoticed 
until APHIS' first inspection up to a year later.
  It was clearly the intent of Congress that facilities should come 
into compliance before being issued the initial registrations, and that 
license renewals should be withheld where licenses have been suspended 
or revoked or in instances where facilities are not in compliance with 
the provisions of the act. Section 2.3 of the Animal Welfare Act, among 
others, implicitly gives APHIS the authority to conduct inspections and 
to deny renewals. The provision reads:

       Each applicant must demonstrate that his or her premises 
     and any animals, facilities, vehicles, equipment, or other 
     premises used or intended for use in the business comply with 
     the regulations and standards set forth in parts 2 and 3 of 
     this subchapter. Each applicant for an initial license or 
     license renewal must make his or her animals, premises . . . 
     available for inspection . . . to ascertain the applicant's 
     compliance with the standards and regulations.

  [[Page E1240]] While APHIS maintains that it does not have the 
authority to withhold licenses for failure to comply with AWA 
requirements once an original license is issued, the agency does in 
fact have the authority to suspend and revoke the license of any 
facility that violates the act. I am hopeful that this misunderstanding 
within the agency can be corrected. If APHIS does not have the 
authority, under current legislation, to enforce the requirements of 
the act, then it should seek the authority from Congress or initiate 
legislation, as the inspector general has recommended, amending the act 
to provide APHIS with the proper authority:
  The report surely provides plenty of ammunition for concerned groups 
and citizens who have asserted for years that APHIS is not willing to 
enforce the AWA. I am hopeful that we can move forward from here and 
begin to provide a more meaningful level of protection for the 
thousands of animals under the current jurisdiction of APHIS. I look 
forward to seeing APHIS move forward with a progressive approach toward 
rectifying the egregious problems associated with the enforcement of 
the act and its concomitant regulations.


                          ____________________