[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 18449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    AMENDING THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT

  Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (S. 3666) to amend the Animal Welfare Act to modify the definition 
of ``exhibitor''.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ANIMAL WELFARE.

       Section 2(h) of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132(h)) 
     is amended by adding ``an owner of a common, domesticated 
     household pet who derives less than a substantial portion of 
     income from a nonprimary source (as determined by the 
     Secretary) for exhibiting an animal that exclusively resides 
     at the residence of the pet owner,'' after ``stores,''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, S. 3666, 
and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  S. 3666 is a simple regulatory relief measure which has been proposed 
to modify the definition of the term ``exhibitor'' under the Federal 
Animal Welfare Act. It has passed the Senate by unanimous consent and, 
in the last hours of the 112th Congress, I urge that it likewise be 
passed by the House of Representatives.
  The legislation would relieve private pet owners who might make a few 
dollars on the side with their pets but who do not derive a substantial 
portion of their income from such activities from the licensure 
requirements under the Federal Animal Welfare Act.
  An example where this might be an issue is in hiring somebody to 
serve as an extra in a film. These are the people who appear in the 
background of film scenes and may work on the film set for a couple of 
hours at a time or a day or two at the most. If that person has their 
pet with them during the filming, the current interpretation of the 
Animal Welfare Act is that the extra would be designated an animal 
exhibitor under Federal law and must therefore be licensed, inspected, 
and comply with all the administrative and record-keeping requirements 
of the act. This was not what the law intended nor is the 
administration of such a requirement a necessary or useful allocation 
of scarce Federal resources.
  The Federal Animal Welfare Act was intended to regulate businesses, 
not private citizens. There are many examples across the government of 
regulatory overreach. While I regret that we have not been able to 
address all of those in the 112th Congress, certainly this is one we 
can agree needs fixing and should be fixed.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his efforts with our 
colleagues in the Senate to pass this measure, S. 3666.
  As was stated, this is a measure that involves common sense, and it 
attempts to relieve burdensome paperwork that frankly has no place 
under the current scheme in which movies are made in this country that 
require, without the relief of this measure, them to be included under 
the Federal Animal Welfare Act.
  As was stated, movies and television shows often use animals as 
extras. We're used to seeing that. It's part of the way these movies 
are made. This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to clarify that when 
pets are owned by individual citizens who are acting in that movie or 
in that television show that they should not be regulated by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture when it comes to these animals being used as 
extras in films.
  These animals should not be captured under the Animal Welfare Act 
regulations. The USDA, as we know, is spread pretty thin. It is using 
scarce resources to regulate personal pets, which now is required under 
the current law that this legislation will relieve that burden from. We 
think that the USDA should focus its resources on more cost-effective 
measures rather than regulating individual personal pets that are used 
in these movies or in these television shows as--the term of art is 
``animal actors''; animals that play a key movie or television role 
will not be affected by this legislation. They will continue to be 
regulated by the Animal Welfare Act. This is, as I said at the outset, 
a commonsense regulatory relief of burdensome paperwork. I would ask my 
colleagues to support this measure.

                              {time}  1150

  S. 3666 is, I think, a well-thought-out measure. I want to thank, 
again, the gentleman from Arkansas and the committee for their efforts 
on this measure and ask their support for the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, S. 3666.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________