| H.R. 3393 | H.R. 3398 | H.R. 2934 | S. 1701 | H.R. 3173 | S. 1477 | H.R. 2508 |
| S. 1283 | S. 1459 | S. 1483 | S. 1364 | S. 1365 | H.R. 2856 | H.R. 2143 |
Introduced on May 7, 1996, by Jon Fox (R-Penn.) and referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry on May 13, 1996. Executive comment requested from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on May 20, 1996. This act may be cited as the "Family Pet Protection Act of 1996."
"Section 7 of the Animal Welfare Act is amended to read as follows: (a) It shall be unlawful for any research facility to purchase, lease, or acquire in a calendar year a live or dead dog or cat, in or affecting commerce, for research or educational purposes, except from-- (1) a licensed dealer who bred and raised the dog or cat; (2) a pound that is in compliance with sections 6, 28, and 30, and that acquired the dog or cat from the legal owner of the dog or cat; (3) a person who bred and raised the dog or cat and donated during the calendar year not more than one animal to a research facility or Federal research facility; (4) a research facility that is registered with the Department of Agriculture; or (5) a Federal, State, or local government agency which is not a pound."
Section 7 increases the length of time required for pounds to hold dogs or cats from 5 days to 10 days.
Introduced May 7, 1996, by Charles Canady (R-Fla.) and referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry on May 13,1996. Executive comment requested from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on May 20, 1996. This act may be cited as the "Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1996."
"Section 7 of the Animal Welfare Act is amended to read as follows: (a) Use of Certain Dogs and Cats--No research facility or Federal research facility may use a dog or cat for research or educational purposes if the dog or cat was obtained from a person other than a person described in subsection (c). (b) Selling, Donating, or Offering Dogs and Cats--No person, other than a person described in subsection (c), may sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat to any research facility or Federal research facility. (c) Permissible Sources--Persons from whom a research facility or a Federal research facility may obtain a dog or cat for research or educational purposes under subsection (a) and persons may sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat to a research facility or a Federal research facility under subsection (b) are--(1) a dealer licensed under section 3 [of the Animal Welfare Act] who has bred and raised such a dog or cat; (2) a publicly owned and operated pound or shelter that--(A) is registered with the Department of Agriculture; (B) is in compliance with section 28(a)(1) and with requirements for dealers in section 28 (b) and (c); and (C) obtained such dog or cat from its legal owner, other than a pound or shelter; (3) a person who is donating such dog or cat and who--(A) bred and raised such dog or cat; or (B) owned such dog or cat for not less than 1 year immediately preceding the donation; (4) a research facility licensed by the Department of Agriculture; and (5) a Federal research facility licensed by the Department of Agriculture. "
The act does not require a pound or shelter to release dogs or cats to research facilities.
Introduced on February 1, 1996, by Peter Blute (R-Mass.) and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means; and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry; the Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research, and Forestry; and others on February 13,1996. This act may be cited as the "Taxpayers Savings Act of 1996."
Section 4 states that "the last proviso of the matter under the heading 'Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service' of Title I of the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1986 (P.L. 100-202) is amended by striking ': Provided further, That hereafter,' and all that follows through 'Animal Damage Control activities.'"
Introduced on April 24,1996, by Claiborne Pell (D-R. I.) and referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"It is the policy of the United States to end the needless maiming and suffering inflicted on animals through the use of steel jaw leghold traps by prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce or foreign commerce of the traps and articles of fur from animals that were trapped in the traps."
"SEC. 3. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PENALTIES.
(a) ACTS INVOLVING ARTICLES OF FUR--An article of fur may not be imported, exported, shipped, or received in interstate commerce or foreign commerce if any part of the article is derived from an animal the trapping of which in a steel jaw leghold trap permitted the production of the article. (b) ACTS BY PERSONS--It is unlawful for a person knowingly--
(1) to import, export, ship, or receive an article of fur in violation of subsection (a);
(2) to deliver, carry, transport, or ship by any means, in interstate commerce or foreign commerce, a steel jaw leghold trap; (3) to sell, receive, acquire, or purchase a steel jaw leghold trap that was delivered, carried, transported, or shipped in violation of paragraph (2) or; (4) to violate a regulation issued by the Secretary [of the Interior] under this section."
Related bill H.R. 1404.
Introduced on March 17,1996, by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and referred to the Committee on Commerce and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment. This act may be cited as the "Consumer Products Safe Testing Act."
"The Congress finds that the Federal Government has discouraged the use of nonanimal acute toxicity tests through regulations that mandate or encourage the use of animal acute toxicity tests, or by not prescribing other, less costly, more accurate and humane alternatives,... and; many manufacturers are reluctant to use nonanimal tests without encouragement from the Federal Government."
Sec. 3. (a) states that "not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, each Federal department or agency head shall--(1) review and evaluate any regulation, guideline, or recommendation issued by that department or agency which requires, recommends, or encourages the use of the Draize or other animal acute toxicity test for the purpose of evaluation of the safety of a regulated product; (2) review and evaluate nonanimal alternatives with the potential for partial or full replacement of the Draize or other animal acute toxicity test for some or all of the products regulated; and (3) promulgate regulations, guidelines, or recommendations that specify a nonanimal acute toxicity test or battery of tests should be used instead of an animal acute toxicity test unless that Federal department or agency head determines that the nonanimal acute toxicity test or battery of such tests is less likely to predict the acute health effects on humans of a product than the animal acute toxicity test."
Introduced December 13, 1995, by Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.) and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The act was ordered to be reported to the Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on March 28, 1996. This act may be cited as the "Food and Drug Administration Performance and Accountability Act of 1995."
"Section 903(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(a)) is amended by adding the following: The mission of the [Food and Drug] Administration is to promote and protect the health of the American people by: (1) facilitating the rapid and efficient development and availability of products subject to its regulation; (2) protecting the public from unsafe or ineffective products subject to its regulation; and (3) enforcing the applicable statutes and regulations in a timely, fair, consistent, and decisive manner.''
Other sections grant the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration authority to: establish and maintain an information system to track the status and progress of each application; establish procedures for use of policy statements; and update the procedures and conditions under which devices intended for human use may, upon application, be granted an exemption from certain requirements.
Introduced October 19, 1995, by Wayne Allard (R-Col.) and referred to the House Committee on Commerce. Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, on November 6, 1995. This act may be cited as the "Animal Drug Availability Act of 1995."
"Congress finds that: (1) the new animal drug approval process has been proceeding too slowly, with the result that necessary and useful drug therapies are being kept from the marketplace; (2) the lack of drug approvals for new animal drugs places the health and well-being of animals at risk; (3) the expense and delays caused by effectiveness testing for new animal drugs have begun to outweigh the benefits of such testing; (4) the over reliance on field investigations to establish the effectiveness of new animal drugs is a primary reason the new animal drug approval process has become so burdensome; (5) there are not sufficient approved animal drugs available to treat every specific disease or condition found in each species of animal; (6) it would benefit the public health and safety to have many additional animal drugs reviewed and approved by the Food and Drug Administration; (7) economic and regulatory incentives are necessary to encourage manufacturers of animal drugs to convert unlabeled uses of the drugs to approved, labeled uses; and (8) it is important that the Center for Veterinary Medicine of the Food and Drug Administration promptly implement the recently developed mission, vision, and guiding principles of the Center so that the Food and Drug Administration is a global leader as a public health organization that enables the marketing of safe and effective products." Related bill S. 773.
Introduced September 28, 1995, by Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. This act may be cited as the "Safe Commercial Transportation of Horses Act of 1995."
Congress finds that, to ensure that horses sold for slaughter are provided humane treatment and care, it is essential to regulate the transportation, care, handling, and treatment of horses by any person engaged in the commercial transportation of horses for slaughter.
"Minimum standards for the humane commercial transportation of horses for slaughter shall require, at a minimum, that: (1) no horse for slaughter shall be transported for more than 24 hours without being unloaded from the vehicle and allowed to rest for at least 8 consecutive hours and given access to adequate quantities of wholesome food and potable water; (2) a vehicle shall provide adequate headroom for a horse for slaughter (3) the interior of a vehicle shall be free of protrusions, sharp edges, and harmful objects, have ramps and floors that are adequately covered with a nonskid nonmetallic surface, and be maintained in a sanitary condition; (4) a vehicle shall provide adequate ventilation and shelter from extremes of weather and temperature, be of appropriate size, height, and interior design for the number of equine being carried to prevent overcrowding, and equipped with doors and ramps of sufficient size and location to provide for safe loading and unloading, including unloading during emergencies; (5) horses shall be positioned in the vehicle by size, and stallions shall be segregated from other horses ; (6) all horses for slaughter must be fit to travel as determined by an accredited large animal veterinarian." Related bill H.R. 2433.
Introduced December 7, 1995, by Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) for Pete Domenici (R- New Mexico) and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This act passed the Senate on March 26, 1996, and was sent to the House. Referred to the House Committee on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture on March 26, 1996. The act was reported to the House with an amendment on April 25, 1996. This act may be cited as the "Public Rangelands Management Act of 1995.''
Congress finds that: (1) multiple use has been and continues to be a guiding principle in the management of public lands and national forests; (2) through the cooperative and concerted efforts of the Federal rangeland livestock industry, Federal and State land management agencies, and the general public, the Federal rangelands are in the best condition they have been in during this century, and their condition continues to improve; (3) as a further consequence of those efforts, populations of wildlife are increasing and stabilizing across vast areas of the West; (4) grazing preferences must continue to be adequately safeguarded in order to promote the economic stability of the western livestock industry; (5) it is in the public interest to charge a fee for livestock grazing permits and leases on Federal land.
Introduced December 21, 1995, Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This act may be cited as the "Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 1995."
Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding the following: "whoever knowingly transfers, transports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or the collection of a trophy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." Related bill H.R. 1202.
Introduced October 26, 1995, by Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This act may be cited as the "Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1995."
Congress finds that various species of fish, wildlife, and plants have become extinct as a consequence of a variety of factors, both natural and resulting from human activity. These species of fish, wildlife, and plants are necessary for maintaining biodiversity, important to future generations of Americans.
Amendments to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) are introduced which alter wording on sections covering; endangered and threatened species determination; coordination of species conservation plans; land acquisition; interagency cooperation; international cooperation; and private property rights. Related bills: S.768, H.R. 2275, H.R. 490, S.191, H.R. 571, S.239.
Introduced October 26, 1995, by Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) and referred to the Committee on Finance. This act may be cited as the "Endangered Species Habitat Protection Act of 1995."
The Senate finds the following: (1) The majority of American property owners recognize the importance of protecting the environment. (2) Current Federal tax laws discourage placement of privately held lands into endangered species conservation agreements. (3) The Federal Government should assist landowners in the goal of conserving endangered species and their habitat. (4) If the environment is to be protected and preserved, existing Federal tax laws must be modified or changed to provide tax incentives to landowners to attain such a goal.
Introduced January 5, 1996, by George Miller (D-Calif.) and referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Commerce, International Relations, and Ways and Means. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held hearings on February 29, 1996. This act may be cited as the "International Dolphin Protection and Consumer Information Act of 1995."
The Congress finds the following: (1) The nations that fish for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean have reduced dolphin mortalities associated with that fishery from hundreds of thousands annually to fewer than 5,000 annually. (2) The provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 that impose a ban on imports from nations that fish for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean have served as an incentive to reduce dolphin mortalities. (3) Consumers of the United States and Europe have made clear their preference for tuna that has not been caught through the killing, chasing, or harming of dolphins. (4) Tuna canners and processors of the United States have led the canning and processing industry in promoting a dolphin- safe tuna market. (5) The 12 signatory nations to the Declaration of Panama, including the United States, agreed under that Declaration to require that the total annual dolphin mortality in the purse seine fishery for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean not exceed 5,000, with a commitment and objective to progressively reduce dolphin mortality to a level approaching zero through the setting of annual limits.
The purposes of this act are: (1) to recognize that nations fishing for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean have achieved significant reductions in dolphin mortality associated with that fishery; and (2) to eliminate the ban on imports of dolphin-safe tuna from those nations. Related bills H.R. 2823, S. 1420, H.R. 2179.
Introduced July 31, 1995, by Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and referred to the Committee on Agriculture and the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. Executive comment requested from USDA on February 8, 1996. This act may be cited as the "Downed Animal Protection Act."
"It shall be unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer, market, hold, or drag any nonambulatory livestock unless the nonambulatory livestock has been humanely euthanized."
(Note: To find out the status of these or any other bills, contact the Congressional bill status line at (202) 225-1772. This information is also available on the World Wide Web at http://thomas.loc.gov/d104/d104query.html)
Go to:
Contents, Animal Welfare Information Center
Newsletter
Top of Document
The Animal Welfare Information Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
Phone: (301) 504-6212
FAX: (301) 504-7125
E-mail: awic@nal.usda.gov
