Ch. 1 —Summary, Policy Issues, and Options for Congressional Action • 33 
• replace voluntary assurances and simple cer- 
tifications of compliance with more rigorous 
procedures. 
Additional funding could help stimulate the present 
passive regulatory situation to become a more ac- 
tive, aggressive regulatory environment. Such a 
transition would rest on APHIS’ level of enthusiasm 
for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act. 
Option 4: Expand the jurisdiction of enforcing 
agencies to include standards of care, 
treatment , and use during the actual 
conduct of experimentation. 
The Animal Welfare Act exempts the treatment 
of animals while they are actually involved in ex- 
perimentation, except for a requirement for ap- 
propriate anesthesia or analgesia and the use of 
professionally acceptable standards in the care, 
treatment, and use of animals. The original law 
exempted actual experimentation because Con- 
gress did not want to interfere with the conduct 
of the scientific process (see ch. 13). Animal care 
and treatment are essentially regulated only be- 
fore and after a scientific procedure. Implemen- 
tation of this option would broach the design and 
execution of experimental protocols and would 
require statutory change. Such action would in- 
crease the responsibility of APHIS and its enforce- 
ment would require additional funding. A deter- 
rent to implementation of this option is APHIS’ lack 
of expertise in reviewing experimental protocols. 
Option 5: Realign existing and any new responsi- 
bilities for enforcement among Federal 
departments and agencies. 
APHIS spends little of its resources, either mone- 
tary or personnel, enforcing the Animal Welfare 
Act (see ch. 13). It was selected by Congress in 1966 
to enforce the act because it had some expertise 
in animal issues but did not have the conflict of 
interest that an entity such as NIH or DHHS might 
have. 
Enforcement power could be changed by trans- 
ferring enforcement authority for violations of the 
Animal Welfare Act from USDA (APHIS) to DHHS . 
This would set up a potential conflict of interest: 
A single department would both sponsor animal 
experimentation and have oversight authority . In 
addition, many of the regulations in the Animal 
Welfare Act affect areas in which DHHS has no 
expertise (e.g., animal use by exhibitors). 
In amending the Animal Welfare Act in 1985, 
Congress mandated that the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture consult with the Secretary of Health and Hu- 
man Services prior to issuing regulations under 
authority of the act. The implementation of this 
provision may lead to DHHS having increased in- 
fluence on the enforcement of the act. 
Option 6: Amend the Animal Welfare Act to pre- 
empt State and local laws concerning 
animal use in areas not already covered 
by the Animal Welfare Act. 
Although the Edward Taub case in Maryland (see 
ch. 14) did not decide the preemption question, 
it did bring up the issue of whether the Animal 
Welfare Act could preempt a State statute. Con- 
gress may wish to examine its authority to preempt 
State anticruelty statutes and may then wish to 
specify for the judiciary whether it intended its 
law to supersede any State or local laws on this 
issue. In doing so, Congress could remove uncer- 
tainty in the law by making clear whether it in- 
tends the Animal Welfare Act to be a comprehen- 
sive, exclusive system of control over the use of 
animals in experimental facilities and activities in 
interstate and foreign commerce. Without such 
clarification, the possibility exists for local crimi- 
nal prosecution, seizure of animals, injunctions to 
close facilities, and cessation of animal investi- 
gations. 
Current State and local efforts to assure humane 
treatment have been criticized for several reasons. 
Compliance schemes are overly complex, training 
and resources are inadequate, and existing laws 
are not specific enough in their standards for care, 
treatment, and use. If Federal preemption is not 
exercised, then State and local laws will be con- 
sidered concurrent and complementary to exist- 
ing Federal laws. 
It is important to note that Federal preemption 
means that the administrative system for moni- 
toring, including on-site inspection, should be made 
adequate to ensure continued compliance with na- 
tional standards for humane treatment. Otherw ise, 
State-level organizations with a sincere and rea- 
sonable concern about the care of animals w ill be 
