[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 18 (Thursday, February 17, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Page S1670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 451. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all 
dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Pet Safety 
and Protection Act of 2005. My legislation amends the Animal Welfare 
Act to ensure that all companion animals such as dogs and cats used by 
research facilities are obtained legally.
  Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, 
authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set and enforce standards 
protecting animals used in biomedical research, bred for commercial 
sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported from 
inhumane treatment. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the AWA and 
the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, 
the act fails to provide reliable protection against the actions of 
some unethical animal dealers.
  Under the AWA, class B animal dealers are defined as individuals 
whose business includes the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in 
commerce, including dogs and cats intended for use at research 
facilities. To the dismay of animal welfare advocates and pet owners, 
some class B, or ``random source,'' dealers have resorted to theft and 
deception to collect animals for resale. In many instances these 
animals were found living under inhumane conditions.
  As recently as August of 2003, USDA agents executed a warrant to 
investigate a class B dealer from Arkansas suspected of violations of 
the AWA for the second time in several years. Many claims have been 
levied against this dealer, and approximately 125 dogs were seized by 
federal agents during this week-long search. The complaint investigated 
by the USDA against the dealer alleged that the respondents' 
veterinarian provided for them falsified official health certificates 
for cats and dogs, and also provided them with blank, undated, and 
signed health certificates. It also alleged that the dealer failed to 
provide the barest standards of care, husbandry, and housing for the 
animals on the premises. In addition, it alleged that its proprietors 
were aware that some of the companion animals brought to the facility 
were stolen, and that the business maintained a list of over 50 
``bunchers,'' individuals who obtain animals and sell them to ``random 
source'' animal dealers. Bunchers have a variety of methods of 
obtaining companion animals, including responding to newspaper ads 
offering free animals, trespassing on private property to abduct the 
animals from yards, and house burglaries.
  I am pleased to report that the civil trial against this class B 
dealer was settled on January 28, 2005. Under the agreement, the dealer 
and others associated with the business had their licenses permanently 
revoked. In addition, fines up to $262,700 were imposed by the USDA, 
which included a personal civil penalty of $12,700. The dealer also is 
prohibited from engaging in any activities under which the licenses 
were revoked for 5 years.
  While this case resulted in a landmark settlement, I would like to 
remind my colleagues that if it were not for an outside organization 
that filed a complaint with the USDA, this class B dealer could still 
be in operation today. We, in Congress, need to ensure that dealers 
such as the one in Arkansas are unable to acquire, house, and sell 
pets.
  The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 strengthens the AWA by 
prohibiting the use of class B dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to 
research laboratories. Contrary to what others might say, my 
legislation will not be a burden on research facilities because only 2 
percent of the approximately 2,051 class B dealers in the United States 
currently sell cats and dogs to research facilities.
  I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used 
in research. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle 
against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the 
fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of 
other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and 
continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am 
concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research 
facilities and the poor treatment of these animals by some class B 
dealers.
  My legislation preserves the integrity of animal research by 
encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate 
sources that comply with the AWA. Legitimate sources for animals 
include USDA-licensed class A dealers, breeders, and research 
facilities, municipal pounds and shelters, and legitimate pet owners 
who want to donate their animals to research. These sources are capable 
of meeting the demand for research animals. The National Institutes of 
Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, have already adopted 
policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from class B dealers.
  The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 also reduces the USDA's 
regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more 
efficiently and effectively. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent 
on regulating dealers. To discourage any future violations of the AWA, 
my bill increases the penalties to a minimum of $1,000 per violation.
  I reiterate that this bill in no way impairs or impedes research but 
will end the fraudulent practices of some class B dealers, as well as 
the unnecessary suffering of these animals in their care. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______