Santorum's
PAWS
Speech To Congress
PAWS Sponsor Senator
Rick Santorum's PAWS speech in which he attempts to justify
the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (SB1139/HR2669), an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
2011 Editor's Note:
Rick Santorum and Dick Durban may have had the best of intentions re Animal
Welfare but hindsight leads most to believe that he was "persuaded" by
lobbyists for HSUS, (Humane Society Of The U.S.) and shockingly, AKC (American
Kennel Club) and that his motives had
nothing to do with Animal "welfare." AKC contributed heavily to
his campaign
SANTORUM: July 27, 2005 - Mr. President, on May 26, 2005
I introduced with my colleague Senator Durbin the "Pet Animal Welfare Statute"
of 2005, or "PAWS." PAWS amends the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen the
Secretary of Agriculture's authority to deal with the problems of substandard
animal dealers.
RESPONSE: Local and state
laws are already in place to deal with animal cruelty, sanitation and nuisance
violations. Federal regulations providing an additional layer of
coverage are unwarranted.
SANTORUM: PAWS strengthens the Secretary of
Agriculture's authority to deal with substandard animal dealers by making four
important improvements to the Animal Welfare Act. First, it will bring under
coverage of the Animal Welfare Act high volume dealers who are in every respect
like those dealers currently regulated, but are evading regulation because they
sell animals exclusively at retail. PAWS will continue to exempt real retail pet stores, and
will add a new exemption for small dealers and hobby and show breeders...
RESPONSE: First, there is a
connotation by using the term "evade" that breeders/sellers are engaging in
illegal activity by pursuing the hobby or small business of selling pets, show
animals, service dogs and assistance dogs to the public at retail. Second, to
say that PAWS "strengthens" authority is an innocuous statement for a measure
that will reverse a federal court ruling (DDAL vs Veneman, Anne 2003)
upholding USDA's position that retail sellers were not to be regulated.
Reversing this decision by enacting PAWS could result in filing of lawsuits to uphold the
original decision. Third, the exemption for small dealers, hobby and show
breeders is based on numbers. Numbers should not be used as they are subject to
change. No proof has been provided that the numbers being used as a threshold in
PAWS has any relevance to quality of care or need for regulation. The numbers
are not and never will be written in stone; they will be subject to change. In
addition, adding more dealers to inspect without enormous funding does not
strengthen the Secretary's authority but instead weakens it and is not an
effective use of resources.
SANTORUM: . . . . Third, PAWS will create an incentive
for dealers to quickly correct serious problems by giving the Secretary
authority to temporarily suspend dealers' licenses for up to 60 days if a
violation is placing the health of an animal in imminent danger.
Finally, PAWS will strengthen the authority of the
Secretary to obtain injunctions to shut down dealers who fail to comply with the
law.
RESPONSE: This eliminates
due process to which every citizen is entitled and contradicts the 4th
amendment. Bypassing local authorities adds unthinkable amount of work to USDA
staff attorneys. The existing Animal Welfare Act specifically requires
that injunctions be sought in the federal district in which an alleged violator
resides or conducts business. USDA attorneys, mostly based in Washington, will be
traveling all over the entire country attending violation cases in lieu of these
being handled by local attorneys.
To realize the impact PAWS
has on AWA enforcement, one must go beyond the mindset that violations only
occur in situations that are life threatening to animals. Violations could be
improper food containers, a clogged sanitation drain that left standing water,
animals of the wrong age or sex kenneled together, or dog houses that do not
meet the inspectors approval, etc. The violation could be written as one
violation for the condition OR a separate violation for each animal.
Interpretation is at the discretion of the investigator.
In addition the current AWA
reads: "each violation and each day during which a violation continues shall be
a separate offense." The small breeder/hobbyist or small business owner may be
so afraid of unreasonable high fines and threat of unwarranted federal
litigation that they find it easier to just give up their rights and abandon
their pursuit. This would certainly be a plus for HSUS/DDAL/PETA who seek to
end all animal breeding.
SANTORUM: The marketplace for animals has changed
dramatically since the 1970s when the current animal dealer provisions of the
Act were written. At that time only retail pet stores and small hobby and show
breeders sold pet animals, so regulating wholesale sellers and exempting persons
who sold animals at retail and were regulated by the market made some sense.
With the advent of the internet, mass national marketing channels, and
mass importation of puppies for resale, there are a large number of
unregulated dealers who are in every respect identical to the dealers regulated
by the Act, except that they evade regulation by selling exclusively at retail.
By regulating these high volume retail sellers, we will assure that they meet
the same standards for the humane care and treatment of animals that breeders
and brokers selling at wholesale have been meeting for 30 years.
RESPONSE: Internet sales
account for one-tenth of a percent of dogs sold in the U.S. This is no
reason to license thousands upon thousands of hobby breeders of dogs, cats,
rabbits, guinea pigs, and birds for this reason.. Purchasing via the internet
sight unseen is no different than purchasing through a magazine or farm
journal long distance. It is not the duty of the federal government to monitor
and regulate the purchasing habits or prerogatives of the public. Although a few
unscrupulous people may sell dogs via the internet that are housed in poor
conditions, these people can be dealt with by local cruelty and/or consumer
protection laws. The internet is a valuable tool for connecting both quality
breeders and rescue organizations with potential buyers and should not be
compromised by regulating the users.
Strengthening importation
regulations to ensure safety and health of animals in transit is a separate
issue and should be handled as such. It does not require the licensing of
thousands of small retail sellers who are not
involved in the importation of pets.
SANTORUM: PAWS defines the term "retail pet store" so
that only real retail pet stores are exempt, where customers can see the animals
and the conditions where they are kept. PAWS also adds a specific exemption for
small dealers and hobby and show breeders. Only persons who sell more than 25
dogs per year would be regulated. In addition, breeders who sell dogs and cats
from fewer than 7 litters a year bred or raised on their own premises,
or fewer than 25 dogs and cats per year bred or raised on their own premises,
which ever is greater, would be exempt. For example, if an Irish Setter breeder
has 6 litters that average 6 puppies each for a total of 36 puppies, they
can sell them without being regulated. If a toy breeder has 10 litters
that average only 2 puppies each for a total of 20 puppies, they can sell
them without being regulated. These breeders could also sell 25 or fewer
other dogs a year not bred or raised on their own premises such as stud
puppies or puppies from co-ownerships, without being regulated. I firmly believe
that the sport and hobby of breeding and raising dogs and cats should not be a
federally regulated activity. PAWS will, for the first time, put an explicit
exemption into the Animal Welfare Act to protect small hobby and show breeders
from regulation.
RESPONSE: Again, setting a
threshold with numbers and expanding into small retail sellers only extends the
USDA's job to a level that is not enforceable weakening the effectiveness of
overall inspections and regulations and using up financial resources that would
be better spent elsewhere.
Editorial comment: The words in Senator Santorum’s verbal address above do NOT
match the written words of the proposed amendment unless it has been changed and
none of us are aware of that. What the Senator says it means is exactly what
AKC CEO Ron Menaker and AKC Federal Legislation Liaison man Dr. Jim Holt have
also said, perhaps believing what THEY were told. We hope someone out there
besides TheDogPress has addressed this very important contradiction.
SANTORUM: Some persons who sell dogs for hunting
purposes have expressed a concern that PAWS will bring them under regulation.
The current Animal Welfare Act already covers persons who sell hunting dogs,
and has for almost 30 years. They are regulated on the same basis as those who
sell dogs for pets. PAWS will continue to regulate sellers of hunting dogs on
the same basis as those who sell dogs as pets. Only high volume sellers
who exceed the exemptions set forth in PAWS will be subject to regulation.
RESPONSE: In October 2004,
the USDA concluded an AWA current law rulemaking that determined retail
sellers of dogs for hunting purposes are exempt from federal
licensing, while sellers to wholesalers are licensed "dealers." PAWS, because it
eliminates the longstanding wholesale-retail sales distinction in
defining dealers, is PRECISELY the reason that owners of hunting and security
dogs are subjected to additional potential regulation. The PAWS-USDA
implementing regulations could require that any hunting dog seller have a
federal license. This extra provision applies to hunting and security dog
sellers, but not to owners of herding, working or toy breeds. By no stretch of
the wildest imagination is this rational, or "exactly as they do ... who breed
and/or sell dogs as pets."
PAWS's non-hunting,
non-security dog, other breeders' and dog sellers' licensing exemption is
awkwardly worded, but it's reasonably straightforward for governmenteese, if you
read it carefully. The AKC's consultant, management and public relations
department can't seem to decide what it means. The registry's official position
has changed at least three, if not four times. The key word in two
critical lines is "OR," as in either or. AND, ALSO, IN ADDITION don't appear in
that PAWS text.
SANTORUM: Some rescue and shelter organizations have
expressed concern that because they often charge an adoption fee to those who
adopt the dogs they place, these organizations will fall within the definition
of "dealers" in PAWS and be regulated. True rescue and shelter organizations who
do not sell dogs or cats in commerce, for profit, will not be brought under
regulation by PAWS, whether or not they are formally incorporated as not for
profit organizations.
RESPONSE: From Sharon A
Coleman, of The Animal Council: PAWS AND "RESCUE" ISSUES have inspired claims by
proponents that AWA only covers "commerce" in a business sense and would exclude
non-profit rescue organizations. Rather, the word "commerce" in federal
law relates to the federal power to regulate commerce under the United States
Constitution Commerce Clause Article I, §8, of the Constitution "[t]o make all
Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" its
authority to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States." The term "commerce" was included in AWA in the 1970 amendments
to provide jurisdiction within states as long as an activity had some
impact on interstate commerce so that there would be no requirement that animals
cross state lines. Historically the Commerce Clause has been broadly interpreted
by the Supreme Court as to what has impact on interstate commerce, because this
concept enables use of the federal government's police power. The recent
Supreme Court decision in the medical marijuana case, Gonzales, Attorney
General, Et Al. V. Raich Et Al. available at
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html provides a
current reference on the broad judicial interpretation of "commerce" for federal
purposes. The Court noted that even "Congress' power to regulate purely
local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established." Such
activities need not be conducted as a profit-making business.
COMMERCE INCLUDES RESCUE
since animals transferred in rescue transactions are a significant portion of
the total market for animals. Rescue animals are particularly involved with the
alleged reasons for PAWS, i.e. use of the internet and imports as well as
frequent interstate transport and sales of animals from undocumented sources and
unregulated standards of care often involving large numbers of animals. There
are no convincing policy reasons to exclude the rescue sector from inclusion in
the PAWS dealer definition except as to those shelters operated under the PAWS
pet store definition and thus excluded as dealers. The additional wording in the
dealer definition, i.e. "dealer" means any person who, in commerce, for
COMPENSATION OR PROFIT, ... would only exclude operators who received
nothing of tangible value in exchange for placing animals. It is possible to
structure rescue placements with no compensation, but many rescue organizations
derive significant funding from these charges. Rescue transactions are legally
treated as sales unless expressly excluded or treated differently for specific
purposes by law, e.g. sales tax, warranties, etc. Note that the "consideration"
required for a legally enforceable contract can be only a promise to do or not
do something and not money or anything else of monetary value. The purposes of
the AWA are to ensure the welfare of animals in commerce, which includes
rescue animals, so excluding private rescue from proposed regulation of
retail sellers defeats the statutory purpose to protect animals.
SANTORUM: Some high volume dealers in cats and dogs who
will be brought under coverage of the Animal Welfare Act by PAWS, but who are
still small enough that they breed and raise dogs or cats in essentially a
residential environment, have expressed concern that they will be forced to
build kennels and catteries and will no longer be able to raise animals in a
residential environment. There is nothing in PAWS, or in the current Animal
Welfare Act, that precludes persons from breeding and raising animals in a
residential setting, provided the animals are properly housed and cared for. In
implementing PAWS, the Secretary of Agriculture will have to assure that
the animal care regulations take into account breeders and dealers who conduct
their operations in a residential setting.
RESPONSE: The burden of
writing standards to allow breeders to raise dogs and cats in residential
settings will fall on the USDA. The current standards are written for commercial
facilities. The USDA will be faced with the overwhelmingly difficult task of
promulgating regulations that apply to small dealers and breeders in a variety
of settings as varied as there are homes, and different for both dogs and cats
and small animals which are also covered in PAWS. In addition, USDA must
decide whether to follow performance standards or engineering standards in
developing these new regulations. Either way is a no win situation.
Performance standards are being challenged by animal rights groups in favor of
engineering standards. Newly developed regulations allowing breeding inside
the home will be challenged by commercial breeders who must comply with
current more costly regulations. Lawsuits will be inevitable as all sides
attempt have their version of requirements enacted into law.
SANTORUM: I want to make clear that PAWS is a very
different piece of legislation than the bills that Senator Durbin and I have
introduced in previous Congresses. PAWS does not require or justify creating
any new animal care standards, like our previous legislation did. . . .
RESPONSE: See paragraph above
and Senator Santorum's comment that new regulations need to be written to
allow breeding and raising animals in a residential setting (which in turn will
require USDA to promulgate new standards of care).
www.ncraoa.com/alerts.html/SantorumRebuttal_July_27
http://www.thedogplace.org/PAWS/Santorum-Speech&Rebuttal.asp
#05071201
|
PAWS INFORMATION
