 |
|
URGENT: Ask Farm Bill Conferees to Delete the
Puppy Protection Act from the Farm Bill Conference Report
UPDATE - April 11, 2002
The PPA remains very
much an open issue. The AKC continues to work with House and Senate
conferees to have our concerns addressed. Fanciers seeking the
latest information on the PPA should watch AKC's web site,
www.akc.org.
March 20, 2002
Lead
negotiators of the House/Senate Farm Bill Conference issued a
statement late yesterday indicating that they expect work on the
final farm bill to be completed the week of April 9th. Now more than
ever faxes, calls or e-mails from the dog fancy are needed. In the
past few days AKC has received several calls from conferees' staff
wanting more information, so we know the issue is a priority in
their offices. Let's keep the pressure on!
March 8,
2002
The list of Farm Bill conference committee members below
has been confirmed, and work has begun to reconcile the House and
Senate versions of the bill. It is critical that dog fanciers keep
up the campaign to have the Puppy Protection Act removed from the
Farm Bill. Please refer to the alert below for further details,
model letters and talking points for use in contacting your Senators
and Representatives. Every phone call and fax
counts!
February 21, 2002
On February 13, 2002 the
Senate voted to include the Puppy Protection Act in the Senate farm
bill. Although Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), the lead sponsor of the
PPA, made several minor last minute alterations in the bill, it is
still unacceptable to purebred dog fanciers. Senator Santorum
continues to tell fanciers and his colleagues that the PPA targets
only "puppy mills" and will not affect hobby and show breeders.
However, Senator Santorum rejected AKC's efforts to include language
in the PPA, and even in Senate floor discussion, that would limit
the PPA only to the commercial breeders currently regulated under
the Animal Welfare Act.
The farm bill now heads to a
"conference committee" of Senators and Representatives who will
attempt to reconcile differences in the Senate and House versions
and produce a "clean bill" that the two chambers can agree on and
send to the President. The conferees have their work cut out for
them. The Senate farm bill, which is not yet printed, is expected to
run to nearly 1400 pages because of all the non-farm-program content
like the PPA inserted by various senators. The House bill is "only"
about 350 pages.
There is no PPA provision in the House farm
bill. Therefore the conferees have broad latitude to drop the PPA
from the farm bill completely, adopt the Senate version of the PPA,
or come up with a different provision. The AKC is urging
conferees to eliminate the PPA from the farm
bill.
Although the conferees for the farm bill have not
yet been named, a list
of likely conferees appears at the end of this alert. This list
will be updated if necessary. All fanciers are urged to communicate
with your Senators and Representative and ask them to eliminate the
PPA from the farm bill. Two
model letters are included at the end of this alert, one for
persons who are constituents of conferees and one for those who are
not constituents of conferees. Even if your senators or
representative are not conferees, you can still help by sending the
model letter below, or a letter you make up yourself, asking your
member to talk to the conferees and urge them to drop the PPA from
the farm bill. This kind of member-to-member lobbying can be very
effective. For fanciers who are constituents of conferees, your
letters directly to the conferees are obviously very
important.
Congress is under great pressure to conference
the farm bill quickly because the agricultural planting season is
rapidly approaching. Therefore, contacts with conferees must be made
immediately. Please remember that the number of communications is
important. Don't rely only on your club secretary or Legislative
Liaison to make a contact. Every fancier should make a contact.
U.S. mail to the Washington D.C. offices of Senators and
Representatives is still very slow because of the anthrax scare.
However, written communications are still the most effective.
Therefore, we suggest faxing your letter to your members at
the Washington office fax numbers shown below. We have provided
local office telephone numbers and e-mail addresses for those who do
not want to write a letter. Phone calls and e-mails are helpful, but
letters are most effective. (Don't hesitate to do all
three.)
Following are the AKC's objections to the PPA provisions in
the Senate farm bill:
- The PPA
requires the federal government to set standards for when to breed
and how frequently to breed dogs. The decision on whether and when
to breed should be made by owners, not the federal government.
Currently the Animal Welfare Act does not regulate breeding
practices for any species regulated under the Act. We believe it
is a dangerous precedent and unnecessary for the federal
government to begin attempting to control the breeding of domestic
animals.
- The PPA
requires the federal government to establish and enforce
"socialization" standards for puppies and dogs. There is no basis
in current science, and no consensus among breeders, veterinarians
or animal behaviorists, as to what constitutes acceptable
"socialization standards". Breeders follow a myriad of different
practices for socializing dogs and puppies depending on the
circumstances in which the animals are kept, the purposes for
which they are breed, and differences in breeds and in individual
dogs. Forcing the federal government to develop and enforce a
socialization standard would mire the government in endless
controversy, and would become an enforcement
nightmare.
- The PPA
imposes a three-strikes-and-you're-out standard on violators of
the Animal Welfare Act. This provision does not give the USDA any
authority it does not already have; it only reduces the discretion
of the Department in dealing with violators. It will mire the
Department down in bureaucratic requirements and litigation
because it will create an incentive for dealers to challenge every
violation rather than providing an incentive to come into
compliance. It does not address the real enforcement problem,
which is persons operating without a license or with a suspended
or revoked license.
- Although the
proponents of the PPA say that it is intended to apply only to the
approximately 3000 dog dealers licensed under current USDA
regulations, the same groups are supporting litigation that would
bring all persons who buy or sell dogs for hunting, breeding or
security purposes, or for use as a pet, under licensing except
actual retail pet stores. This would require USDA to go into
hundreds of thousands of individual homes to inspect and regulate
the conditions under which hobby and show breeders and ordinary
pet owners maintain their pets, including how and when they breed
and how they socialize their dogs and puppies.
Likely Farm Bill
Conferees:
Senate
The Hon. Thad Cochran
(R-MS)
senator@cochran.senate.gov
202-224-5054
202-224-9450
(fax)
District offices: Jackson, 601-965-4459;
Oxford,
662-236-1018
The Hon. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
senator@conrad.senate.gov
202-224-2043
202-224-7776
(fax)
District offices: Bismark, 701-258-4648; Fargo,
701-232-8030; Grand Forks, 701-775-9601; Minot,
701-852-0703
The Hon. Tom Daschle (D-SD)
tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov
202-224-6603
202-224-7895
(fax)
District offices: Aberdeen, 605-225-8823; Sioux Falls,
605-334-9596; Rapid City, 605-348-7551
* The Hon. Tom Harkin
(D-IA)
tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov
202-224-3254
202-224-9369
(fax)
District offices: Des Moines, 515-284-4574; Cedar Rapids,
3196-365-4504;
Davenport, 319-322-1338 Dubuque,
319-582-2130; Sioux City, 712-252-1550
The Hon. Jesse Helms
(R-NC)
jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov
202-224-6342
202-228-1339
(fax)
District offices: Raleigh, 919-856-4630, Hickory,
828-322-5170
* The Hon. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
202-224-4242
202-224-3479
(fax)
District offices: Burlington, 802-863-2525; Montpelier,
802-229-0569
The Hon. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
202-224-4814
202-228-0360
(fax)
District offices: Indianapolis, 317-226-5555;
Jeffersonville, 812-288-3377; Ft. Wayne,
219-422-1505;
Merrillville, 219-736-9084; Evansville,
812-465-6313
House
The Hon. John Boehner
(R-OH)
john.boehner@mail.house.gov
202-225-6205
202-225-0704
(fax)
District offices: Hamilton, 513-870-0300; Troy,
937-339-1524
The Hon. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
saxby.chambliss@mail.house.gov
202-225-6531
202-225-3013
(fax)
District offices: Macon, 912-752-0800; Waycross,
912-287-1180
The Hon. Eva Clayton (D-NC)
eclayton1@mail.house.gov
202-225-3101
202-225-3354
(fax)
District offices: Norlina, 252-456-4800; Greenville,
252-758-8800
The Hon. Larry Combest (R-TX)
www.house.gov/writerepl
202-225-4005
202-225-9615
(fax)
District offices: Lubbock, 806-763-1611; Amarillo,
806-353-3945; Odessa, 915-332-0742
The Hon. Gary Condit
(D-CA)
rep.condit@mail.house.gov
202-225-6131
202-225-0819
(fax)
District offices: Modesto, 209-527-1914;
Mered,
209-383-4455
The Hon. Calvin Dooley (D-CA)
www.house.gov/writerepl
202-225-3341
202-225-9308 (fax)
District office: Fresno,
559-441-7496
The Hon. Terry Everett (R-AL)
terry.everett@mail.house.gov
202-225-2901
202-225-8913
(fax)
District offices: Dothan, 334-794-9680, Montgomery,
334-277-9113, Opp, 334-493-9253
The Hon. Bob Goodlatte
(R-VA)
talk2bob@mail.house.gov
202-225-5431
202-225-9681
(fax)
District offices: Roanoke, 540-857-2672, Staunton,
540-885-3861, Harrisonburg,
540-432-2391; Lynchburg,
804-845-8306
The Hon. Tim Holden (D-PA)
www.house.gov/writerepl
202-225-5546
202-226-0996 (fax)
District offices:
Pottsville, 570-622-4212, Reading, 610-371-9931
The Hon. Frank Lucas
(R-OK)
replucas@mail.house.gov
202-225-5565
202-225-8698
(fax)
District offices: Oklahoma City, 405-235-5311; Woodward,
580-256-5752; Enid, 580-233-9224; Clinton,
580-323-6232
The Hon. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
jerry.moran@mail.house.gov
202-225-2715
202-225-5124
(fax)
District offices: Hutchinson, 316-665-6138; Hays,
785-628-6401
The Hon. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
tocollin.peterson@mail.house.gov
202-225-2165
202-225-1593
(fax)
District offices: Detroit Lakes, 218-847-5056; Waite Park,
320-259-0559; Red Lake Falls,
218-253-4356
The Hon. Richard Pombo
(R-CA)
Rpombo@mail.house.gov
202-225-1947
202-226-0861
(fax)
District office: Stockton, 209-951-3091
The Hon. Charles Stenholm
(D-TX)
www.house.gov/writerepl
202-225-6605
202-225-2234 (fax)
District offices:
Stamford, 915-773-3623; Abilene, 915-673-7221,
San Angelo,
915-655-7994
(*) indicates cosponsor of the
PPA
MODEL LETTER TO BE SENT TO MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS
WHO ARE FARM BILL
CONFEREES
Dear
[Senator/Congressman _________]:
I am writing to express
my strong opposition to the inclusion of the Santorum "Puppy
Protection Act" (PPA) in the Senate farm bill (S. 1731/H.R.2646). I
understand that you are likely to be a conferee on the farm bill.
For the reasons below, I am asking that you strike the "Puppy
Protection Act from the conference report on the farm
bill.
[Include a SHORT paragraph about yourself and your dog
interest, pointing out that you are a constituent of the conferee.
Use the following as a model: "I live in [city and state]. I have
bred, owned and shown Dalmatians for more than 15 years. I breed and
raise a litter of puppies occasionally in my own home and sell my
puppies at retail directly to persons who purchase them as their own
household pet or for show or breeding
purposes."]
No hearings and no debate
was ever held on the PPA in either the Senate or the House. The
language of the PPA circumvented the normal legislative process, and
the need for this legislation has not been
established.
The PPA would, for the first time, inject the federal
government into controlling the breeding of domestic animals. The
Animals Welfare Act currently does not regulate the breeding of any
animal species. This is not an issue the federal government should
become involved in. The PPA also requires the federal government to
regulate the socialization of dogs and puppies. There is no
scientific basis, and no consensus among breeders, veterinarians or
animal behaviorists, about standards for socialization of puppies
and adult dogs. The PPA sets a dangerous precedent for the intrusion
of the federal government into new areas of regulation that should
remain the province of breeders.
The amendment also
contains new enforcement provisions that would actually reduce the
USDA's enforcement discretion in obtaining compliance with its
regulations by dog dealers. It would mire the agency in bureaucratic
requirements and litigation, resulting in less rather than more
effective enforcement.
Again, I strongly urge
you as a likely farm bill conferee not to support inclusion of the
PPA in the conference report on the farm
bill.
Thank you.
Sincerely
yours,
MODEL LETTER TO BE SENT TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WHO
ARE NOT FARM BILL CONFEREES
Dear
[Senator/Congressman _________]:
I am writing to express
my strong opposition to inclusion of the Santorum "Puppy Protection
Act" (PPA) as an amendment to the Senate farm bill (S.
1731/H.R.2646). For the reasons below, I am asking that you speak to
your colleagues who will be conferees on the farm bill and ask them
to strike the "Puppy Protection Act" from the conference report
on the farm bill.
[Include a SHORT
paragraph about yourself and your dog interest, using the following
example as a model. "I have owned, bred and shown Dalmatians for
more than 15 years. I breed and raise a litter of puppies
occasionally in my own home and sell my puppies at retail directly
to persons who purchase them as their own household pet or for show
or breeding purposes."]
No hearings and no debate
was ever held on the Santorum amendment in either the Senate or the
House. The need for this legislation has not been established, and
the language of the amendment circumvented the normal legislative
process.
The PPA would, for the first time, inject the federal
government into controlling the breeding of domestic animals. The
Animals Welfare Act currently does not regulate the breeding of any
animal species. This is not an issue the federal government should
become involved in. The PPA also requires the federal government to
regulate the socialization of dogs and puppies. There is no
scientific basis, and no consensus among breeders, veterinarians or
animal behaviorists, about standards for socialization of puppies
and adult dogs. The PPA sets a dangerous precedent for the intrusion
of the federal government into new areas of regulation that should
remain the province of breeders.
The amendment also
contains new enforcement provisions that would actually reduce the
USDA's enforcement discretion in obtaining compliance with its
regulations by dog dealers. It would mire the agency in bureaucratic
requirements and litigation, resulting in less rather than more
effective enforcement.
Again, please discuss
this provision with your colleagues who are farm bill conferees, and
ask them to remove the PPA from the final bill.
Thank
you.
Sincerely yours,
| |
|
|
