U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–594 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–338

PET AMIMAL WELFARE STATUTE OF 2005 (PAWS)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH, NUTRITION, AND 

GENERAL LEGISLATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 8, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

STEVEN MEEKS, Majority Legislative Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 (PAWS) ........................................................ 01

Tuesday, November 8, 2005

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation ........................... 01

WITNESSES 

Amundson, Sara, Legislative Director, Doris Day Animal League ..................... 20

Childers, Henry, President, American Veterinary Medical Association ............. 08

Hoffman, John E., Dog Fancier and Lawyer ......................................................... 10

Maddox, Michael, Legislative Director, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council ... 11

Menaker, Ron, Chairman, American Kennel Club ............................................... 07

Pacelle, Wayne, President and Chief Executive Officer, the Humane Society 

of the United States ............................................................................................. 17

Worley, Norma, Director, Animal Welfare Program, Maine Department of 

Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 22

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie and Durbin, Hon. Richard ....................................... 26

Amundson, Sara ............................................................................................... 29

Childers, Henry ................................................................................................ 80

Howard, Deborah A. ......................................................................................... 86

Liss, Cathy ........................................................................................................ 89

Hoffman, John E. .............................................................................................. 93

Maddox, Michael ............................................................................................... 104

Menaker, Ron .................................................................................................... 107

Pacelle, Wayne .................................................................................................. 110

Worley, Norma .................................................................................................. 123

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Letters of support for PAWS ........................................................................... 128

Letters of opposition towards PAWS .............................................................. 129

(1)

PET ANIMAL WELFARE STATUTE OF 2005 

(PAWS) 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2005

UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH, NUTRITION, AND GENERAL

LEGISLATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in Room 

SD–G–50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rick Santorum 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator Santorum. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SANTORUM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

PENNSYLVANIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH, NUTRITION, AND GENERAL LEGISLATION, OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

Senator SANTORUM. I will hit that a little harder next time. 

Thank you all for being here. Let me welcome everybody to this 

hearing and thank all of you in attendance and particularly our 

witnesses for being here. The committee will come to order, and we 

just want to again thank everyone. 

Over the past several years, since the original piece of legislation 

that was focused on revising the Animal Welfare Act to deal with 

changes in the buying and selling of animals, of dogs and cats in 

particular. It came to the farm bill and was stripped out of conference. I have been working with a variety of different groups, 

many of whom are represented here today, to try to get at a serious 

problem that exists that we will hear described in more detail 

today. 

This has been a work in progress, and if there is one message 

that I want to leave with people who are here today is that it continues to be a work in progress. One of the reasons I wanted to 

hold this hearing is because we have seen, I even noticed in the 

paper today, in the Roll Call today, there is an effort out there on 

the Internet and other places to put out misconceptions about what 

this legislation does, and it is important to get on the record not 

only what this legislation does but those who are in support of this 

legislation, what our intent is, so we can continue to work together 

to work on the problems that we confront. 

And those problems are serious. They are as a result of the 

changing economic situation with respect to the selling of dogs and 

cats and in particular with the advent of the Internet, the advent 

of sales from overseas into this country, the direct marketing of 

2

those animals by Internet businesses and others. It is important for 

us to make sure that animals are treated humanely and that we, 

in fact, have proper consumer protections. These are animals that 

are in most cases, not in all, but in most cases are going to be in 

the homes and interacting with people, and we want to make sure 

that these animals are, in fact, healthy and, in fact, what people 

are paying for and not something that is going to cause not only 

an economic harm for people but, as we all know, those of us who 

are dog owners and cat owners, emotional harm to individuals. 

I strongly believe that this legislation is important. I also strongly believe that we can arrive at a bill that will bring people together who in many cases have not worked together on issues because of the important problem that we are facing. And again, I 

want to reiterate, I want to thank all of the groups that are here 

today, our first panel and our second panel. 

Working very closely with us, we have been able to make some 

major changes just in the last several months since we put forth 

the PAWS legislation that has gotten so much attention, we have 

worked with the pet stores who I know are represented here 

today—that is PIJAC as well as the AKC and other organizations 

who have expressed concern about various provisions of this legislation, the Veterinary Medical Association, all have expressed concern, have come to my office, and we have worked to try to sort 

through those. We will have a discussion about some of those, but 

candidly, we may not even discuss and bring up some of them, because they are issues that are now resolved. 

My hope is that as a result of this hearing and the discussions 

that we have had leading up to this hearing that I can put out a 

discussion draft in the coming weeks so we can get further feedback and input from the public, those who are interested to make 

sure that we are all headed in the right direction, which is a good 

piece of consumer protection legislation as well as a strong animal 

welfare piece at the same time. 

With that, I just, again, want to reiterate that it is my intention 

to work together to have all the responsible groups represented 

here today and others to be on the same page to make sure that 

this legislation is adopted. I have no intention, and I know, and I 

will ask, I have no intention of putting folks like me who have a 

dog and have bred a dog under Federal Government control, I have 

no intention of, and I think the people here have no intention of 

making sure that folks are hobby breeders or show breeders or fanciers or the like who do not breed lots of dogs and have lots of litters as defined in the bill; we are very clear about that, that we 

are talking about folks who are in large, in a sense, if you will, of 

production of dogs and cats for sale. 

These are the folks that we are looking at. These are the folks 

who are, in many cases, already covered under the Animal Welfare 

Act. We want to make sure that that act, which was written a long 

time ago with terms that no longer apply has a modern interpretation and one that we will have consensus on. 

So I again appreciate—I cannot tell you how much work has 

gone into it by the organizations represented here today to find 

common ground. We will continue to search for that common 

3

ground, and I am hopeful that we will have a strong piece of legislation that deals with the problems that we confront. 

Senator SANTORUM. With that, let me introduce our first panel. 

We have Ron Menaker, who is the chairman of the American Kennel Club. He is with us today; Dr. Henry Childers, who is the president of the American Veterinary Medical Association; Mr. John 

Hoffman, who is a dog fancier; and Mr. Michael Maddox, who is 

the legislative director of PIJAC, which is the Pet Industry Joint 

Advisory Council. 

Let me go first to you, Mr. Menaker, and Mr. Menaker is the 

Chairman of the Board of the American Kennel Club. He is from 

New York, and I want to in particular thank you for the various 

meetings that we have had over the past few months and the 

amount of time and effort that you and the AKC have spent in 

making sure that this legislation will have the kind of broad support that is needed to address the problems that we have and be 

able to be successfully passed here in the United States Senate and 

signed into law. 

Mr. MENAKER.

STATEMENT OF RON MENAKER, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN 

KENNEL CLUB 

Mr. MENAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the Chairman of 

Board of the American Kennel Club. The AKC is the largest and 

only significant not-for-profit dog registry and sanctioning body for 

competitive dog events in the United States. We register nearly 1 

million pure-bred dogs and over 400,000 litters of pure-bred puppies every year. 

Almost 17,000 competitive dog events are held nationally each 

year under AKC rules attracting more than 2.5 million entries. I 

cite these statistics to emphasize the importance of the sport of 

pure-bred dogs. Selling puppies is a business for some, but for 

many Americans who breed and raise pure-bred dogs it is a hobby, 

a family sport and a labor of love. 

The AKC was founded in this spirit 121 years ago, and this passion is still alive today. The AKC, however, also provides registration services to all dog breeders who meet our standards, including 

mandatory inspections of high volume breeders, dog identification 

and recordkeeping, care and condition standards for dogs and kennels, and DNA testing to check parentage of litters. This year, we 

are on target to conduct approximately 5,000 kennel inspections. 

The AKC encourages puppy buyers to buy from responsible resources. We believe the vast majority of high volume breeders as 

well as smaller breeding establishments do a conscientious job of 

breeding and raising quality puppies and care passionately about 

their animals. However, we also know from our first-hand experience in the field that in spite of our efforts and the efforts of the 

USDA, there are still significant problems that need to be addressed for the sake of both the dogs and the pet-buying public. 

Some of these are deficiencies in the Animal Welfare Act and 

some result from changes in the marketplace and marketing techniques for dogs that have occurred in the 30 years since the act 

was extended to dog dealers. That is why we are pleased that you 

4

have focused your attention and the attention of Congress on the 

need to strengthen the act. 

We are pleased to be working with you in this effort. As you 

know, we did not support your previous legislation intended to address the problems of so-called puppy mills, because we felt that 

Federal regulation of practices for breeding and socialization of 

puppies was the wrong approach. However, PAWS takes a different 

approach. It gives the USDA access to source records of persons 

who acquire dogs for resale, provides a more efficient time frame 

for dealing with violators who have been suspended, and gives the 

USDA authority to close down egregious violators. 

These are essential tools for the USDA to effectively enforce the 

Act. We do not expect the USDA to have to use these tools often, 

but the fact that the USDA has these tools will create an incentive 

for persons to obtain licenses and quickly correct violations. We 

also know from the AKC’s own experience that the time has come 

to bring under regulation high volume breeders and brokers who 

sell at retail or who import puppies in volume for resale. However, 

it is also essential that we maintain the sport and hobby of purebred dog breeding and exhibiting as it is today, a sport regulated 

by our own rigorous compliance requirements. 

PAWS should focus the Federal Government’s regulatory resources on realistic targets and goals. We appreciate the dealer 

provisions of PAWS as you have clarified them. We especially appreciate the addition of the provision that will exempt retailers 

based on kennel inspection standards of not-for-profit organizations 

certified by the Secretary of Agriculture. This will focus enforcement on the high volume retail breeders and importers whom it is 

appropriate to regulate without imposing Federal regulation on 

hobby and show breeders. 

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your hard work and leadership 

on this important issue. We thank you for your flexibility and openness to new approaches. We look forward to continuing to work 

with you to develop and secure legislation that will be good for all 

of our beloved dogs. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Menaker can be found in the appendix on page 107.] 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Menaker. 

Dr. Childers, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY CHILDERS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 

Mr. CHILDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

subcommittee for giving the American Veterinary Medical Association the opportunity to speak in support of the Pet Animal Welfare 

Statute. I am Dr. Henry Childers, President of the AVMA and a 

companion animal practitioner from Rhode Island. The AVMA represents 73,000 veterinarians. Fifty-five percent of us are companion 

animal practitioners who commit our expertise and energy to ensuring the wellbeing of the nation’s pets. 

Unfortunately, veterinarians are regularly confronted with pets 

that suffer the ill effects of irresponsible breeding and inappropriate transport over long distances. Animal suffering compounds 

5

human suffering when heartache and financial burdens are thrust 

upon pet owners who have purchased these unfortunate animals. 

Large scale puppy and kitten dealers who escape regulation 

under the current Animal Welfare Act are a significant source of 

these problems. Overbreeding, inbreeding, inadequate veterinary 

care, poor quality food and shelter, overcrowding, poor socialization 

and stress due to prolonged transport are the hallmarks of these 

operations. These operations escape regulation because they sell directly to the public, either from their facilities or by way of the 

Internet, and are therefore classified as retail pet stores. 

Retail pet stores are not required to be licensed under the Animal Welfare Act. As veterinarians, we see the shortened life 

expectancies and the years of impaired function that the affected 

pets must endure. Sometimes, when our most valued efforts cannot 

resolve the problem, families must be forced to make yet another 

difficult decision, euthanasia. 

The burdens created by irresponsible breeders who escape regulation are not limited to those affecting the pet and its family. 

When owners can no longer care for their pets and cannot bear the 

idea of euthanasia, they often surrender their pets to animal shelters. Whether these animal shelters are publicly supported or privately supported, the cost of caring for these animals is now borne 

by the community. 

The high volume breeders and importers that this statute will affect have profit as their only goal. They do not care if the animals 

they deliver are healthy. They do not care what effect this will 

have on the purchasers or the shelters. To date, they have been excepted from the law. The AVMA believes this must be corrected. 

Congress has the power to do that. Passing the Pet Animal Welfare 

Statute will provide USDA with the tools it needs to bring these 

high volume breeders and importers under a mandate that requires 

a viable health plan for their animals and holds them accountable 

when their efforts do not meet the standards. 

The AVMA has a strong professional and public education presence. Veterinarians possess up-to-date and scientifically rigorous 

information about animal health care and welfare which they pass 

along to their clients on a daily basis. These clients include breeders, pet owners, and an increasing number of prospective pet owners who are seeking the advice of a veterinarian. 

Ensuring pet welfare is at the heart of what we do. Ensuring the 

welfare of the American public is at the heart of what you do. Together, we can help ensure that America’s pet owners and pets are 

afforded the protection they deserve. The Pet Animal Welfare Statute is an important step in the right direction. While we have included comments in our written testimony that we urge the subcommittee to consider, the AVMA appreciates the opportunity to 

publicly express our support for this legislation. 

I thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Childers can be found in the appendix on page 80.] 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you very much Dr. Childers. 

Mr. HOFFMAN.

6

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. HOFFMAN, DOG FANCIER AND 

LAWYER 

Mr. HOFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANTORUM. If you can pull the microphone up so people—thank you. 

Mr. HOFFMAN. I am a business litigation lawyer, the owner of 

three miniature schnauzers, and an occasional dog breeder and exhibitor. I own dogs for the same reason most people do. They are 

wonderful companions. Over the years, I have provided pro bono 

legal services to dog clubs and rescue organizations. A year ago, the 

French Bulldog Rescue Network asked me to help Willa Bagwell, 

the humane officer for Lake Elsinore, California. An importer there 

was selling sick and dying puppies from Eastern Europe. Many 

buyers were incurring huge veterinary fees within a week after 

buying the puppies. Some puppies were dying despite the veterinarians’ best efforts. 

After months of work, we were able to have the bankruptcy court 

bar the importer from buying and selling puppies while she pays 

off her creditors but only because she foolishly filed for bankruptcy. 

If she had not done so, she would probably still be in business. 

When I began investigating the scope of the commercial puppy 

importing business, I found dozens of kennels advertising imported 

Bulldog and French Bulldog puppies on their own Websites and 

also on Websites containing classified ads for puppies. Some importers sell through newspaper ads. Some sell through pet shops. 

Some do not disclose before sale that they are selling imported puppies. Most of them began as domestic breeders. Many continue to 

breed domestically as well as importing. It just depends which 

costs less. 

Exporters abroad gather puppies from breeders in rural areas, 

ship them by truck or rail to the capital cities, from where they are 

shipped by air to the U.S. and then by car or truck to the importer’s place of business. Many puppies die en route. Many more die 

shortly after arrival. Dead puppies are just a cost of business, acceptable so long as the cost of importing remains less than the cost 

of breeding puppies here. 

Imported puppies are not cheap. Many are sold for $1,800 and 

up, as shown by the enlarged ad to my right for Sasha and Whitney. Puppies of many breeds are being imported. We also have an 

enlargement of one page of the many pages on the Europuppy 

Website showing different breeds for sale. 

Based on the number of puppies the Lake Elsinore importer was 

selling, the number of importers selling over the Internet and the 

number of puppies arriving monthly through the Los Angeles Airport, it is clear that at least 10,000 puppies a year are being into 

the U.S. and probably many more than that. 

Unfortunately, State and local regulation is not enforced. Local 

prosecutors are busy. Enforcement of animal protection laws tends 

to be a low priority, particularly when most of the injured buyers 

live outside of the jurisdiction, as is commonly the case with Internet sellers. Thus, humane officers can rarely persuade State and 

local prosecutors to act. That is true whether the offenses involve 

imported or domestically bred puppies. 

7

Federal law at present is no more helpful. The Animal Welfare 

Act does not cover puppy importers who sell at retail, such as 

through the Internet or newspaper ads. Other Federal laws that 

are applicable to imported puppies are not being enforced. The 

Frenchie Tails ad to my right is an example. It openly advertises 

seven-week-old imported puppies for sale, even though Federal law 

prohibits shipment of puppies younger than eight weeks old and 

prohibits sale of imported puppies younger than four months. 

If enacted, PAWS would bring under inspection and regulation 

all puppy importers who import more than 25 puppies per year for 

resale, regardless of how they sell their puppies, and thus go a long 

way toward ending the abuses that are now occurring. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, and 

staff members for your hard work on this important issue. Please 

feel free to call upon me if I can be of any assistance in that regard. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman can be found in the appendix on page 93.] 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman. 

Mr. MADDOX.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MADDOX, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL 

Mr. MADDOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We appreciate the opportunity to offer you our views. The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council is the largest pet trade association 

in the world, representing every segment of the pet industry. 

PIJAC works to ensure that members of the commercial trade observe high standards in the care of pet animals. We have been involved with the Animal Welfare Act for more than three decades 

and have worked tirelessly with APHIS to maximize effective administration of the act. 

We believe proper enforcement of AWA standards brings about 

mutual benefit for the pet industry, the pet-owning public and the 

animals themselves. We have witnessed first hand these benefits 

over the years and are intent on taking whatever efforts we may 

to perpetuate the good work of USDA. 

Congress has historically recognized the need for a functional 

regulatory framework that targets those persons in the pet trade 

escaping public and regulatory oversight. From its inception, the 

AWA has explicitly exempted retailers that are subject to broad 

public exposure and are frequently regulated at the State and local 

level. PIJAC joins with you, Mr. Chairman in acknowledging that 

the rationale for exempting pet stores is as valid today as it has 

always been. In fact, as this subcommittee considers bringing 

under the act potentially thousands of additional licensees that will 

vie for APHIS’ regulatory and inspection resources, it is important 

that we do not overburden the agency with a mandate for persons 

that are not in need of Federal regulation. 

We would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, some concerns we have 

with the introduced bill, recognizing that amendments may be addressing these concerns. As noted by your other witnesses today, 

advocates of PAWS point to large scale breeding operations and 

Internet sales of dogs as recent trends escaping oversight. This bill 

would regulate individuals but would also have the effect of capVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:00 Apr 10, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\26594.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
8

turing the very pet stores intended to be subject to the AWA’s pet 

store exemption. Other provisions would go so far as to mandate 

licensure of persons who sell even a single pet animal. 

PAWS’ deletion of the longstanding de minimis exemption for 

noncommercial breeders would mean every person selling even a 

single animal other than a dog or cat has to be licensed. PIJAC 

feels certain that the Congress does not wish to subject a 10-yearold child to Federal licensure for selling a couple baby hamsters. 

We also note that a dollar does not buy what it did in 1970, Mr. 

Chairman. This de minimis exemption established 30 years ago 

and yet to be amended should be retained in the Act with a revised 

statutory dollar amount representing inflation over that time span. 

One significant objective of this legislation is to ensure regulation 

of those who import dogs for resale in the U.S. However, in regulating retailers, this provision would not distinguish between those 

who import and sell dogs themselves, such as those selling over the 

Internet, and bona fide pet stores who buy puppies from a Class 

B-licensed dealer. 

The new retail pet store definition is meant to ensure regulation 

of persons not viewed as traditional pet stores. Unfortunately, Mr. 

Chairman, it contains exclusions that would encompass the very 

businesses to which the pet store exemption is meant to apply; for 

example, the provision excluding animals bred for sale to the public 

is aimed at those who breed and sell dogs and cats directly to the 

public, not pet stores who happen to carry hamsters, gerbils, or 

guinea pigs not deliberately bred by the pet store. 

The exclusion for hunting, breeding, and security dogs is meant 

to ensure commercial breeders do not escape regulation but as 

crafted in the original legislation would have the effect of regulating pet stores. This turns the clause on its head. Finally, the exclusion for wild animals relies on a term that encompasses many 

common, domesticated pet animals normally sold at pet stores. The 

exclusion would have the anomalous result of extending licensure 

to the very pet stores specifically intended for exemption. 

This brings us to the source record provision, Mr. Chairman. The 

language would require keeping information that pet dealers have 

no authority to obtain in the first place. A more effective provision 

would require keeping USDA license numbers, thereby allowing 

USDA to target unlicensed dealers. Two additional enforcement 

provisions that will substantially aid APHIS are found in Sections 

4 and 5. The temporary suspension period extension clause gives 

USDA authority in less frequent but more urgent cases. Of even 

greater importance, the provision creating authority to enjoin unlicensed dealers who are ignoring their obligation to meet legal 

standards. 

The injunctive authority under PAWS would add a powerful enforcement tool to permit the agency to go after people who are often 

the most egregious violators. PIJAC endorses these provisions unchanged and feels they would go far in facilitating USDA’s effective 

enforcement of the act. 

We must acknowledge as you have already noted, Mr. Chairman, 

that recent efforts with your staff and proponents of PAWS have 

yielded suggested amendments that would address concerns that 

we have raised here today. We are optimistic that such amendVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:00 Apr 10, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\26594.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
9

ments can correct the unintended consequences that would result 

in compromising USDA enforcement efforts while preserving important sections of this bill that promote more effective enforcement. 

We appreciate your willingness to consider the pet industry’s 

concerns, Mr. Chairman, and thank the subcommittee for entertaining our comments today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maddox can be found in the appendix on page 104.] 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Maddox. I appreciate it. 

We have two votes that started at 2:45, and so, since it is almost 

3:00, and we have 15 minute votes, that means I have to run. And 

there will be back to back votes, so I will be back hopefully in the 

next 15 or so minutes, and we will resume with questions for this 

panel, and I apologize for the interruption. 

We are recessed. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Senator SANTORUM. The meeting will come to order. Again, let 

me apologize to all of you for the vagaries of the United States Senate and having to do such mundane things as cast votes on important amendments to the defense authorization bill, but I appreciate 

your willingness to be patient. 

Let me start out. There are a lot of misconceptions, I would say, 

misconceptions about what this bill is all about, and I just want to 

run through a few of them with this panel. We will run through 

a few more with the second panel. First is just maybe Mr. 

Menaker, you can give me a sense with your membership, what 

percentage of your membership would be affected by the PAWS legislation, would apply the Animal Welfare Act to what percentage 

of your membership roughly? 

Mr. MENAKER. As it stands today, Senator, I would say less than 

4 percent. 

Senator SANTORUM. Less than 4 percent. So 96 percent of your 

members would not be affected at all. 

Mr. MENAKER. No differently than they are today. 

Senator SANTORUM. No differently than they are today. But we 

have heard testimony that this act, you believe, panelists would believe, would cover more people, more people would be subject to the 

Animal Welfare Act as a result of this bill. You would admit that. 

Mr. MENAKER. Absolutely, because with the care and conditions 

and inspections that we conduct annually, we are forced when 

there is noncompliance to suspend and move people out of the AKC 

registry. The problem is they take off to the nonregulated registries 

and continue to function as normal. 

Senator SANTORUM. Another question was raised about the 

amount of enforcement dollars that APHIS would have, the USDA 

would have to deal with the additional entities that would be governed by the Animal Welfare Act. You mentioned something in 

your testimony that we are working toward resolution, and that is 

the idea of having an organization such as yourselves, the AKC, 

provide a certification for standards that would be at least as rigorous as the Animal Welfare Act or in exceedence of the Animal 

10

Welfare Act. Could you give me a sense of how that would work 

or what your suggestion is? 

Mr. MENAKER. Senator, what I have said is that we believe that 

our AKC inspections today exceed the USDA inspections. We inspect for records and identification purposes. We inspect for, you 

know, looking at IDs via tattoos, microchips, collar tags. We do 

DNA for parentage. Our care and conditions look for cleanliness, 

parasite infestation, safety of the materials the breeder uses, and 

the adequacy of the shelters. 

What I am saying is that when an individual is inspected, a kennel, by the American Kennel Club, if they meet these rigorous requirements, then the proposal we spoke of would be to basically 

allow an exemption so that the dollars could be spent inspecting 

those facilities and those kennels who today are not inspected at 

all and are under no regulation whatsoever. 

Senator SANTORUM. Does any other panelist have a comment 

about that suggestion? No? 

Mr. MADDOX. I would only say, Mr. Chairman, that as noted, 

PIJAC has worked closely with USDA for many years to enhance 

enforcement of the Act, and we certainly, while this act seeks to 

capture people that you feel need to be regulated, we certainly 

would not want to see the ability of USDA to regulate all licensees 

compromised in any way. So certainly, anything that you would do 

to further the inspection capabilities would be a positive step. 

Senator SANTORUM. Targeting the resources to where the problem is the most severe. 

Mr. MADDOX. Yes, sir. 

Senator SANTORUM. Some other things have been brought up, if 

anyone would like to comment, someone suggested that the PAWS 

legislation would have a negative impact on sportsmen. Does anybody want to make a comment on that, whether you see that as 

a real threat to the sportsmen. 

Mr. Menaker? 

Mr. MENAKER. I personally do not see that as a threat. I think 

that most of what I have read is absolutely unfounded. I believe 

that individuals have misunderstood what the legislation is intended to do. 

We at the American Kennel Club are proud of the fact that we 

have had standards in place for the past 10 years, actually beyond 

that when it comes to records, for the past 40 years for records, and 

we do not see a problem having standards put in place that are 

equivalent to the standards we already use. Unfortunately, given 

the standards we have put in place, we have had to suspend over 

2,000 people in the last five years, which has caused a reduction 

in our registrations of about 25 percent. 

However, we are proud to say that we believe those people 

should not be part of the American Kennel Club’s process, because 

their care and conditions and standards are absolutely inappropriate. The problem is that they move out to the other 23 registries 

that have no regulation at all, so they beat the system by moving 

out. 

Senator SANTORUM. Other comment? 

Mr. HOFFMAN. I concur with Mr. Menaker. Anybody who is 

breeding 25 or more dogs or six or more litters, whichever is greatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:00 Apr 10, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\26594.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
11

er, has crossed the threshold from a pure hobby into a business 

and ought to be subject to the kind of regulation most businesses 

are. All the Act requires is inspection and compliance with decent 

treatment standards. That is not too much to ask of anybody who 

is in business. 

Senator SANTORUM. Another concern that I have read and seen 

on the Internet and other places is that this legislation would bring 

commercial regulatory standards into the home, that USDA would 

do that. Anybody have any fear of that or concern that something 

like that would be required under this act? 

Mr. MENAKER. Well, I certainly do not, speaking on behalf of the 

American Kennel Club. As I say, we do it today. We have been 

doing it today. Nothing changes, and I believe it is appropriate. 

Anything we do in life, we have certain standards. We have to set 

standards. We abide by those standards, and we penalize or take 

action. The attempt is to try to change behavior and to improve the 

care and conditions for the animals. The attempt is nothing more 

than that. If the individual complies, there is no reason why the 

individual cannot continue to participate. Like everything else in 

life, if the individual does not comply, they should not be allowed 

to continue to do business in a manner that is not appropriate. 

Senator SANTORUM. Another point I have heard is that state laws 

are sufficient. Any comment on whether there needs to be any regulation on the Federal level with respect to this as opposed to just 

allowing state laws to take effect? I think, Mr. Hoffman, you commented on that. 

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes, I do. The problem is that where the sales are 

outside the local jurisdiction, there is very little incentive for a 

prosecutor with limited resources to devote time to them. He is 

going to spend his time on matters that affect his local constituents. 

Furthermore, animal cases tend to be low priority with most 

prosecutorial agencies. You generally see better enforcement in the 

large cities where the animal control agency is a municipal agency 

as opposed to a private organization like an SPCA, because they 

have more influence with the prosecutors; also, in a large city, you 

will often have a particular deputy charged with enforcing the animal control laws. He will have some experience and is not starting 

from scratch. 

But when you get outside of the large cities to a smaller place 

like Lake Elsinore, for instance, and having done work for other 

rescues around the country, I am aware it is pretty well uniform, 

it is very difficult to get someone to spend a day or two reading 

up on animal laws and prosecuting these things when they have 

murders, robberies, and all the other things that affect their people 

more directly. 

Senator SANTORUM. You have laid out in your testimony, Mr. 

Hoffman, some violations of the laws in these Internet sales. Are 

you aware of any work being done by APHIS or USDA under the 

Animal Welfare Act to deal with the problem that you have seen? 

Mr. HOFFMAN. USDA does prohibit transport of dogs younger 

than eight weeks, and the burden of that initially falls on the carriers. But they are dependent on the paperwork. They cannot tell 

how old the animals are. And yet, as you have seen from one of 

12

the ads, someone is advertising seven week old puppies imported 

from Europe. Obviously, those puppies were transported at less 

than eight weeks of age. 

There are also CDC regulations which prohibit sale of puppies 

less than 30 days after vaccination for rabies at a minimum age 

of three months in most States, four months in others, which 

means that they cannot be sold at less than four months or five 

months of age. There is absolutely zero enforcement. The CDC has 

told me they have no funds for enforcement, and all of these importers are advertising younger dogs. 

There is not much demand for four and five month old puppies, 

so the puppies are sold as soon as they arrive. For the CDC, it is 

a fairly low priority, because the puppies are suffering generally 

from diseases which are not transmissible to humans, and the 

CDC’s concern is mostly with human infection. 

Part of PAWS will allow the USDA to enforce regulations of 

other Federal agencies. I think this would go a long way towards 

helping with that situation, because the USDA would probably be 

more motivated to enforce the confinement regulations than is the 

CDC. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you. 

Mr. Maddox, you mentioned some concerns you had. You also 

mentioned that we have been working and trying to address those. 

I guess my question to you is that given where that discussion is, 

do you believe that we have adequately addressed the concerns 

that you have with the original draft with the modifications that 

have been discussed with you? 

Mr. MADDOX. Mr. Chairman, I am not certain precisely where we 

have ended up with negotiations, so I want to offer that caveat. But 

I do believe that based on what we have discussed and what we 

have offered in response to that that it does appear that you may 

be addressing pretty much all of PIJAC’s concerns, in which case, 

obviously, we would no longer oppose the bill in any regard. 

Senator SANTORUM. I guess you say that you would no longer oppose the bill, are there any provisions of the bill that you would 

support, any ones that you would—

Mr. MADDOX. Mr. Chairman, as we noted, we absolutely support 

the enforcement provisions with regard to the extension of the suspension period and with regard to the injunctive authority of 

USDA. We believe this will substantially aid the agency in their 

enforcement efforts, and we wholeheartedly support those provisions of the bill. 

The one bill with regard to the so-called threshold at which you 

distinguish between commercial and hobby activity is a provision, 

Mr. Chairman, that we really are not taking a position on. We do 

recognize, and I think everybody recognizes, that there is some 

type of activity that is hobby or noncommercial in nature, and obviously, there is a great deal of activity that is commercial in nature. 

Where you draw that distinction is something that we have not 

stepped in on, primarily because it would not directly affect the 

commercial pet industry. We are already regulated in that regard. 

Our people are already licensed, and it would not expand our licensure by this bill. But certainly, by the same token, we are not 

opposing that measure. We simply do not feel that it directly imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:00 Apr 10, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\26594.TXT TOSHD PsN: LAVERN
13

pacts our industry, and therefore, we are taking a neutral stance 

on that particular provision, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANTORUM. Do you feel that your industry has been affected or harmed by this change in the industry with respect to 

sales of animals? 

Mr. MADDOX. Well, Mr. Chairman, we certainly, as noted, we endorse effective enforcement of the act. We believe that is in the best 

interests of the public, of the pets, and of the commercial pet industry. We believe that those persons who fail to meet requirements 

of law should not be in the industry, and we are pleased to see 

them either brought up to standards or put out of business. 

I do not know, and I do not think anybody knows, the degree to 

which the import and Internet sale of dogs is occurring. So I cannot 

address, you know, I cannot address the degree to which that 

might be affected the pet trade. But certainly, as I said, persons 

who should be licensed and should be observing Federal standards 

but are not, we want them either brought up to snuff or put out 

of business. 

Senator SANTORUM. Does anybody have any further comments 

before I dismiss you? 

Thank you all very much for coming, and if the second panel 

could now take your seats, I would appreciate it. While that panel 

is getting situated, I just want to enter into the record a statement 

by Senator Stabenow and Senator Durbin and other information 

that we have received prior to this hearing to be made a part of 

the record 

[The prepared statements of Senators Stabenow and Durbin can 

be found in the appendix on page 26.] 

Senator SANTORUM. With that, let me thank our second panel of 

witnesses. We have Mr. Wayne Pacelle, who is the President and 

CEO of the Humane Society of the United States; Ms. Sara 

Amundson, who is the legislative director of the Doris Day Animal 

League; and Ms. Norma Worley, Director of the Animal Welfare 

Program at the Maine Department of Agriculture. Let me thank all 

of you for coming and with your patience in testifying here. 

Mr. Pacelle, I want to thank you in particular for all the work 

that you have done over the years in working with this and your 

willingness to sit down and work through as we have just seen 

with the prior panel a lot of issues and a lot of sometimes very 

prickly issues. And dealing with the cooperation that we have had 

from you has been outstanding, so I appreciate that. 

Mr. PACELLE.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED 

STATES 

Mr. PACELLE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you 

said, I am Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the 

United States. We are headquartered in Washington, DC We have 

9.4 million members and constituents, including more than 300,000 

in Pennsylvania, and this is not a quid pro quo, but we are grateful 

to you for all of your leadership throughout your career in public 

service. 

14

This has not been a fleeting concern of yours. I remember standing with you more than a decade ago on this very subject of commercial dog breeding operations, and I appreciate that you have 

stuck with it to such a degree and also in a very bipartisan way, 

attracting Senator Durbin also in the efforts that you have made 

to secure funding. There is one thing to have authorizing legislation. There is another matter to see that the existing laws are 

properly implemented, and your leadership with that of Senator 

Levin and others in securing adequate funding, an 81 percent increase in funding for the Animal Welfare Act over the last five 

years, has really tremendously helped not just the dogs and the 

cats but all of the other animals regulated under the Animal Welfare Act as well as the Horse Protection Act, which is another 

major law that you have helped to seek funding for. 

And frankly, I must admit also, and I would like it to be reflected 

in the record, your other efforts to amend the Animal Welfare Act 

regarding Section 26 regarding animal fighting and combating the 

barbaric practices of dog fighting and cock fighting; so we are deeply grateful to you for all of your efforts and in particular this effort 

here. 

As you know, the Animal Welfare Act was established in 1966, 

so next year will be the 40th year of enforcement to protect animals on a nationwide scale dealing with regulated industries that 

by their nature deal with interstate commerce. And that is really 

the issue here. We work very aggressively at the State level on 

these issues, and many of the issues are State issues, and we welcome our cooperation, collaboration, with State agencies and also 

local agencies. 

But some industries are of a national or international scope that 

require Federal intervention, involvement, regulatory oversight, 

and that is precisely the case with the pet trade and the dog and 

cat trade. And essentially what we have here is I think a very modest bill, a bill that fundamentally deals with the question of fairness. You have a regulated community that is covered because they 

are selling at a volume that has triggered enforcement by the 

USDA, and they are selling at wholesale. 

Because of the Internet, we have a circumstance which the Animal Welfare Act authors in 1966 and subsequent amendment authors, 1985, could not have anticipated the advent of the Internet 

and could not have anticipated the very brisk sales that now exist. 

If you Google various breeds of dogs and ask puppies for sale, you 

will see any manner of large scale breeders who are selling direct 

through the Internet to the public. These people are not covered 

under the standards of the law. 

So the folks who are selling to pet stores are covered and are 

supposed to comply with some of the most basic provisions of care, 

feeding, water, shelter, and the like, yet you have now a growing 

and large class of individuals who are selling direct through the 

Internet who are not covered. So it is unfair to the existing regulated community. It is unfair to consumers, who have no safeguards but the conscience of some of those people, and some of 

them, we have seen time and time again do not have much conscience in this regard in terms of animal welfare and finally in 

15

terms of the animal’s welfare itself, we believe that this public policy is well justified on that basis alone. 

And I will say that this is not just a theoretical concern about 

the Internet. It is not an anticipatory concern in the sense that we 

think this may be a problem. This is a problem here and now. And 

my colleague at the Doris Day Animal League I know is going to 

show some imagery and go into some details, but in our written 

testimony, Mr. Chairman, we have a litany of cases of people selling animals through the Internet, one just a little more than a 

week ago on October 28; 151 dachshunds and springer spaniels and 

one cat were found, many described as skin and bones at the home 

of a retail dealer in Vero Beach, Florida. 

In 2004 in Macomb, Missouri, a case involving an Internet dealer, 147 live dogs and four dead dogs, all with severely matted fur 

were found in dilapidated wire cages covered in feces, many with 

eye ailments, hair loss, deafness, blindness and tumors; a litany of 

these cases which more than justify this change in the law to cover 

people who are escaping oversight when the Congress has essentially said in its past lawmaking that if you are dealing at this 

scale in terms of sales, you should be covered. 

And in terms of the cruelty statutes at the State level, we work 

very hard, Mr. Chairman, on this issue, and now, 42 States have 

felony level penalties for certain acts of cruelty. But we do not want 

it to progress to a state where animals are in a terrible condition 

before we act. The very purpose of the Animal Welfare Act is to try 

to maintain standards so we do not degenerate to a circumstance 

where you have to have an intervention and a cruelty case, and I 

think that the cruelty laws are critical but in no way address what 

we are talking about here. 

And I would also mention that States and private agencies like 

the Humane Society of the United States, local humane societies, 

bear the cost when these cases degenerate to this level. This is not 

a puppy mill case, per se, but we are now in Arkansas dealing with 

500 dogs in a hoarder case, and it is going to cost us hundreds of 

thousands of dollars to deal with these 500 animals, hundreds of 

thousands; dealt with by our society, our members giving money to 

us to help animals that did not anticipate this terrible case of cruelty. 

So if you have a regulatory program that is keeping tabs on people, that is holding them to standards, you prevent these sorts of 

cataclysmic circumstances from occurring. 

I will also just mention in closing, Mr. Chairman, that in your 

legislation, you are not adding welfare standards. You are simply 

logically applying the existing standards to people who should be 

covered and who the Congress frankly would have covered if they 

had known about the advent of the Internet when these provisions 

were originally enacted. Concerns about rescue, breed rescue 

groups being covered are really a tremendous stretch on the part 

of critics of the legislation. They would not be covered. But we 

would support clarifying language to make sure that these people 

are assured it is not our intent; we know in discussing with your 

staff these matters that it is not their intent nor your intent to 

cover them. 

16

In a broad sense, let me just thank you again for your leadership 

on this issue. Animals really live at our mercy. They require our 

merciful actions and our kind actions in order to get through each 

day and each week and each month, because we domesticated 

them. We have created a dependency, and we have a responsibility 

to care for them and to protect them, and the Federal Government 

has an important role, and that role should not be shirked, and we 

appreciate your stepping up. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle can be found in the appendix on page 110.] 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Pacelle. We appreciate it. 

Ms. AMUNDSON.

STATEMENT OF SARA AMUNDSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

DORIS DAY ANIMAL LEAGUE 

Ms. AMUNDSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is truly 

my pleasure to be here today in support of PAWS. We are greatly 

appreciative of your incessant efforts to not only ensure that there 

is appropriate protection for animals under the Animal Welfare Act 

but also to ensure that USDA has the resources necessary to implement those needs. 

I would also like to thank your colleague, Senator Durbin, for his 

leadership role in this area, and I must note that the staff members have been particularly helpful in ensuring that this broad coalition actually comes together today in support of your bill. 

Mr. Pacelle spoke to age of the Animal Welfare Act, and specifically the amendments in 1970 and 1976 went to the heart of what 

it is we are speaking about today. Those amendments were there 

to ensure that breeders who were selling through brokers to pet 

stores were actually licensed, regulated, and inspected under the 

Animal Welfare Act. And let us be direct about it: it made perfect 

sense at that time that those were the targeted large, commercial 

breeders who were actually coming under the auspices of the Animal Welfare Act. 

Unfortunately, times have changed. Times have changed because 

what we are seeing is those individuals who would like to purchase 

a puppy are finding it more and more difficult to actually go to a 

breeder’s property and take a look at the conditions the puppy is 

kept in to ensure those animals are raised with some minimum 

standards of care. That is the thrust of the retail pet store exemption and so the need for PAWS. 

In 1989, the Doris Day Animal League was introduced to this 

issue by a gentleman in Pennsylvania who purchased a dog out of 

the back of a trade magazine. Unfortunately, the dog was purchased from a breeder in the State of Oklahoma, was transported 

on a commercial airliner in the cargo hold, and by the time the dog 

reached the consumer in the State of Pennsylvania, it was so ill 

that in effect, it died shortly thereafter. 

USDA refused to investigate the situation, because, of course, 

this was a retail sales issue. And from their perspective, the Animal Welfare Act did not to regulate those individuals. 

Times have changed. Today, we can access any search engine on 

the Internet, simply type in a few words, and immediately, we have 

access to just reams of information. In fact, just yesterday, I typed 

17

in ‘‘Maltese puppies for sale’’ into the Google search engine, and 

here is what we are looking at: just a handful of the Websites that 

are available for selling these puppies online. I wound up with 

500,000 hits with that terminology alone. 

And unfortunately, as consumers become more and more comfortable with actually purchasing items over the Internet, it has 

grown from purchasing televisions to living, breathing puppies. In 

a recent article we noted in ‘‘The New York Times’’, the American 

Pet Product Manufacturers Association stated that 200,000 American households purchased puppies online just last year, and obviously, this is a money making venture, because these puppies are 

selling for between $500 and $5,000. 

For the past several years, the Doris Day Animal League has 

been tracking these direct sales cruelty and neglect cases, and Mr. 

Pacelle certainly alluded to the cost to society and the animals in 

these cases. You will see a couple of posters here that demonstrate 

some of what we have seen. In early 2004, 230 dogs were seized 

from a breeder in Tennessee. This breeder was selling directly to 

the public, so of course, fell through the cracks and was not licensed, regulated, or inspected. 

It is estimated that the county spent $100,000 on ensuring that 

the seizure took place, the animals were provided appropriate veterinary care, and then, the resolution of the case was reached, and 

those animals were adopted out in cases where they could be. 

A vet testified at that trial that some of the female dogs could 

barely stand, had large tumors; three of them were completely 

blind and over the age of 13 years, and yet, those females were still 

being bred. If this dealer had been under the jurisdiction of the 

Animal Welfare Act, most of those issues would have been egregious violations of the Act. Instead, as Mr. Pacelle said, it fell to 

the States and the locality to actually prosecute the breeder. The 

other photo there depicts conditions in a particularly egregious case 

in the State of Kansas. 

Some breeders are using this loophole in the Act to avoid regulation altogether, including one in Michigan, who had her license revoked by USDA in 1992 because she was selling through pet stores. 

Now, she is selling direct to the public, and there is a second case 

of a number of cruelty charges that have been filed against her. I 

think it is important to note that most of these cruelty or neglect 

cases are demonstrating seizures of 100 to 200 to 450 dogs and 

puppies. These are clearly large-scale, commercial breeders. 

Chairman Santorum, just a cautionary note: while we are generally appreciative of the ability that we have all had to rack 

through some extremely difficult language and reach the point that 

we are at today, and we certainly recognize that USDA has limited 

resources, I think it is important to note that there is no other area 

of the Animal Welfare Act that currently exists where there is a 

third party certification program for actually inspecting kennels. 

And in fact, USDA, under the Horse Protection Act, has done an 

analysis of what has transpired with that program and certification 

for third-party inspections, and it clearly shows that USDA inspectors are citing far more violations under the Horse Protection Act 

than those independent third party inspectors. 

18

We strongly support the language and the threshold in this bill 

and certainly see that USDA has been afforded some wonderful additional tools for the cases that they are looking at, and we would 

like to see that the language remain the same in those areas. 

It has been a pleasure to work with you, and we are looking for- ward to passing $. 1139, the Pet Animal Welfare Statute. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Amundson can be found in the 

appendix on page 29.] 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Ms. Amundson. 

Ms. WORLEY.

STATEMENT OF NORMA WORLEY, DIRECTOR, ANIMAL 

WELFARE PROGRAM, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. WORLEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you. 

Ms. WORLEY. It is a pleasure to be here today in support of this 

legislation. As you mentioned earlier, I am the director of the Animal Welfare Program from the great State of Maine, and I am definitely speaking in support of this legislation. 

I have been in my current position for two and a half years, but 

prior to retiring to Maine in 2001, I spent 21 years as an animal 

cruelty investigator in Southern California. During my tenure both 

in Maine and California, I have investigated hundreds if not thousands of animal cruelty cases, including many dealing with breeding kennels. 

As you are aware, animal welfare issues, in addition to being difficult, are usually emotionally charged. It can be extremely controversial. It is characterized by complaints from the public demanding that the animals they believe are being abused or neglected be removed immediately, regardless of what the law allows 

us to do or even the rights of the owner. The media may also compromise these investigations because, as the editors put it, everyone likes a good animal story. All this eventually results in lengthy 

debates in both State and Federal legislatures analyzing and reanalyzing if our animal cruelty laws, if they even exist, are sufficient. 

There are thousands of breeding kennels across the country that 

do everything in their power to protect their animals and obey the 

law. I am sure that you have heard from some of these breeders 

regarding this legislation. It is important that these law abiding 

kennel owners know that they have nothing to fear from this proposed statute, and there is no slippery slope or hidden agenda. Unfortunately for every one of these lawful and ethical kennel owners, 

there are many if not more who see animals simply as a commodity 

and a way to make a quick buck. 

The PAWS statute before you today identifies and seeks to correct several loopholes in current Federal law that allows no protection for dogs and cats sold directly to the public by large scale 

breeders. This legislation will mandate protection be applied for 

these animals regardless of what State the breeder lives in. 

The State of Maine and its domestic animals are fortunate that 

we have some of the strongest laws in the United States, thus protecting them from unscrupulous breeding kennel owners. This is 

19

not to say that we have no such breeders, because we do. Of the 

800-plus animal cruelty complaints that we have received this 

year, just alone or alone the State of Maine Animal Welfare Program, we have spent hundreds of hours on three investigations involving a pet shop and two breeding kennels. 

The end result was 250-plus dogs removed from these two kennels, and fortunately, these are the lucky ones, as they were adopted into loving, forever homes and have been spayed and neutered 

to help stop this cycle of abuse. Unfortunately, the pet store just 

moved to another State whose laws are not as effective. 

Even with these effective kennel laws, not a week goes by without the Animal Welfare Program receiving a heartbreaking complaint from a new owner who has purchased a pup or kitten than 

a less than honest breeder. To even complicate things more, we 

now have a new twist in marketing for these dishonest breeders. 

As with all new avenues of commerce, the Internet is the latest tool 

to sell dogs and cats. 

Unfortunately, the Internet can reach out all over the world and 

is difficult to track without cooperation of the user. There is nothing more frustrating to us than to receive a complaint from a new 

owner that may live 3,000 miles away who is heartbroken over the 

pup or kitten they have just received. The usual scenario is these 

complainants are surfing the Net, looking for a particular breed 

and fall in love with a picture of what they think is their ideal pet. 

Some are looking for show caliber dogs; some just like the particular breed and want a pet, and then, there is the smaller minority who are even seeking to start their own breeding kennel. 

But going back to the dilemma of the new owner, usually, the 

story entails how they purchased this dog over the Internet and are 

eagerly awaiting the arrival of the new addition to their family. 

However, in most cases, it is anything but a happy event when the 

animal arrives. These young pups, sometimes as young as five and 

six weeks old, are shipped to the new owner by air in a small crate 

held in the cargo area of the plane for trips that can be up to 12 

to 15 hours in length. 

Upon arrival, they are usually sick. Some may have genetic disorders from poor breeding or are just a horrible example of the 

breed. The new owner tries to contact the breeder by email or letter, only to be told, if they get an answer at all, their choice is to 

either return the animal to the breeder, which means reshipping 

back across the United States to be treated by the breeder’s veterinarian or basically tough luck, no compensation. 

The breeder usually has in their contract that includes no refunds for the purchase price or any compensation for veterinarian 

bills that the new owner may acquire. At this point, the new owner 

is totally confused, angry, frustrated, but in most cases now has 

fallen in love with this poor creature, which is what the unscrupulous dealer hoped would happen. 

Now, the owner is faced with the horrendous choice of spending 

perhaps thousands of dollars at their vet with the hope that the 

dog recovers or to return this poor critter to an uncaring breeder 

and an unknown fate. As you would suspect, most decide to keep 

the animal, even though it is not what they wanted, is not healthy, 

20

and they may be saddled with outstanding bills for the rest of the 

animal’s life. 

The positive side is these animals are the lucky ones, as they will 

spend their lives in forever homes. Unfortunately, others will be 

sent back, where they will be nursed back to an appearance of good 

health, only to be sold again in an attempt to recoup the dealer’s 

losses or immediately euthanized. 

So who is the real victim in these cases? Many will say it is the 

purchaser. They were taken advantage of. Others will scoff and say 

buyer beware; they got what they deserved for not doing the research. Others will say this is simply a civil matter, and this is 

what the courts are for. But keep in mind that courts are charged 

with settling disputes based on paper trails and not live animals. 

I come before you today to say the real victims in these cases are 

the puppies and kittens who are taken too young from their mothers; that are not socialized; many times are ill or genetically inferior; and then shipped in cargo holds of airplanes, sometimes enduring trips in length; and now are unwanted. It is beyond my 

realm of understanding how anyone could stand by and allow this 

to happen. 

The victims of these horrendous acts must be protected the same 

as domestic animals who are sold to commercial facilities. The closing of these loopholes must be addressed now in order to protect 

the voiceless victims in States where they have little or no protection. Again, I thank you for this bill, and I hope the Members of 

the committee will vote in support of it. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Worley can be found in the appendix on page 123.] 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Ms. Worley. Appreciate it. 

I just want to review a few things that have been brought up, 

again, by those who have expressed opposition to 1139. First, just 

reading some of the newspaper ads from today’s paper, it says that 

one claims is PAWS would dramatically change the Animal Welfare Act. Does the PAWS legislation change the Animal Welfare 

Act other than who the Animal Welfare Act covers? 

Mr. PACELLE. It really does not meaningfully change the Act except to make it more fairly applied to individuals who are 

sidestepping the regulatory scheme that exists and that many people are operating under just fine. You know, it is not as if—

Senator SANTORUM. So there are no new requirements under the 

Act as far as animal welfare kinds of provisions. 

Mr. PACELLE. No, there are no breeding restrictions. There is no 

socialization requirement. There are none of the things that have 

been long discussed, but they are not in this legislation. 

Senator SANTORUM. Some of you have commented on, and last 

panel did, about the changes in the industry. One of the claims 

here is that less than half of a percent of all dogs who are acquired 

via the Internet or the like. Do you have any numbers or any sense 

of, number one, where we are with respect to that and if there is 

any trend with that regard as far as Internet sales and sales of 

dogs from overseas? 

Ms. AMUNDSON. Well, Chairman Santorum, I would be hard 

pressed to come up with some sort of final number. However, I will 

say that a major trade association, which clearly tracks trends with 

21

pets has stated just last year 200,000 puppies were purchased over 

the Internet. I do think it is important to note that while the Internet is perhaps the most available vehicle for these direct sales, 

clearly, it is taking place through ads in trade magazines, local 

newspapers, and a variety of other mechanisms, too. 

Mr. PACELLE. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I would love to 

see some documentation for that figure. It sounds made up, and it 

sounds like it is just a convenient number thrown out there to minimize the value and importance of the legislation. It is a growing 

industry. You know, we, as Sara indicated, Google these sites; they 

would not exist in the number that they are but for the economic 

activity. 

Senator SANTORUM. Another comment here is that the PAWS 

legislation would Federalize the breeding of home-raised pets. Do 

you intend to Federalize the breeding of pets, people who have, like 

me, who have a dog who had a litter? Do you want to Federalize 

folks who have a dog that has a littler of puppies? 

Ms. AMUNDSON. Mr. Chairman, I simply cannot fathom how that 

could be accomplished. For obvious reasons, the Animal Welfare 

Act is an interstate commerce vehicle, which is why it is the Federal Animal Welfare Act. And certainly, in any written information 

that the Doris Day Animal League has provided over the years we 

have looked at this issue, we have never supported the concept of 

having USDA inspectors in the living rooms of individuals who 

may breed an occasional litter. In fact, it flies in the face of Congressional intent under the Animal Welfare Act, which clearly 

states that this Act is geared toward commercial ventures and not 

to occasional breeding of companion animals. 

Mr. PACELLE. I think that, you know, your legislation clarifies it 

more than existing law does, that these people would not be covered? 

Senator SANTORUM. Could you explain that, why it actually takes 

a step in the direction of clarification? 

Mr. PACELLE. It does, because you have essentially set a new 

standard, a higher threshold, six litters per year, 25 dogs, for sale 

purposes in interstate commerce in order to trigger the enforcement activity of the USDA. 

Senator SANTORUM. So if you are a hobby breeder that has three 

females, and you breed them once a year, you are not going to be 

connected with this. 

Mr. PACELLE. You are not covered, and AKC, which is the main 

industry group, the one that has been around for 100 years, has 

said that the vast, vast majority, 96 percent plus, of its people do 

not come under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act now and 

that we would not be adding new ones at this—if this legislation 

were approved. The law now is a different standard, a lower standard, so I think people should feel better about your legislation. 

Senator SANTORUM. Another question was raised about sportsmen and whether they would be treated differently under this act 

than prior acts, than the current Act, I should say. 

Ms. AMUNDSON. I would certainly have to concur with the response that was provided with the first panel. And again, I will remind individuals in this room that hunting, breeding security dogs 

are already covered under the definition of dealer in the Animal 

22

Welfare Act. This does not create a new sort of mechanism for ensuring that those individuals are regulated. 

Ms. WORLEY. I think it is important to bring up that the State 

of Maine is very much a sportsmen’s, hunting State. I did have 

some conversations with a couple of sportsmen’s group who had expressed, you know, interest that this was new legislation that was 

going to affect them. But when I reminded them that in the State 

of Maine that if you sell more than 16 puppies, you have to be licensed, and basically, they said oh. So they understand, too, that 

some States are more stringent, and this will not affect them. But 

at that point, they said okay, we can support it. 

Mr. PACELLE. And let us point out that, you know, we are not 

talking about coming into your home and ripping apart your drawers and looking under your bed. We are talking about basic animal 

welfare standards. No one should be afraid if they are caring for 

their animals. If their animals are fed and watered, and they have 

shelter, there is no problem. This is just basic, you know, the Government is not coming in and pulling apart people’s homes here. 

Ms. WORLEY. I would just like to add that having been an investigator animal cruelty for over 25 years and now in Maine that I 

do not care what goes on in the living room, but if they are breeding dogs, I do, and I would like to get into their kennels. That is 

all I am interested in. 

Senator SANTORUM. Mr. Pacelle, you mentioned the issue of animal rescue. That seems to be another constant I would say misinterpretation that somehow or another, that this bill will adversely affect animal rescue organizations. Can you comment on 

that directly? 

Mr. PACELLE. I find that a very, you know, fanciful argument. 

These people are not engaged in commercial sale of animals for 

profit. These are rescue groups who are providing assistance to animals in need, and they are not engaging in commercial transactions. They are not covered under the existing law now. They are 

not selling large numbers of animals. And I think most importantly, they are not breeding the animals. I mean, this is a breeding trigger in many respects, and the breed rescue groups are not 

engaging in large-scale breeding of animals. 

Senator SANTORUM. So it is not your intent that the PAWS cover 

these organizations. 

Mr. PACELLE. No, and, as I said, you know, if you want to clarify 

the language—we think that as exists, it is fine, but if, you know, 

you and some of the other backers of the legislation like AKC want 

to see this tailored to really underscore that, we would not object. 

Ms. AMUNDSON. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would say it would be 

defeatist on our part to in any way, shape, or form have this bill 

construed as covering rescue organizations or rescue individuals. 

For obvious reasons, coming from the animal welfare community, 

these are the very individuals who are providing a significant service in these cruelty cases where you have got these large seizures 

of dogs. 

So whether we need to work toward a savings clause or something along those lines that will provide some further demarcation, 

I would say there is nothing in the current language that should 

be construed as encompassing rescue groups. 

23

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you. 

We have another vote scheduled here in five minutes, so I am 

going to thank you all very much for your testimony. I appreciate, 

again, all of you on both panels for the cooperation, and as I said 

at the very beginning, this is a work in progress. We hope to have 

a discussion draft with amendments that have been talked about 

in the last two panels available to the public in the next couple of 

weeks, and we will use that as a further point of discussion to try 

to get, as I said before, a broad consensus to move something forward to the benefit of pets and pet owners. 

Thank you very much. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(25)

A P P E N D I X

NOVEMBER 8, 2005

26


26594.001
27


26594.002
28


26594.003
29


26594.004
30


26594.005
31


26594.006
32


26594.007
33


26594.008
34


26594.009
35


26594.010
36


26594.011
37


26594.012
38


26594.013
39


26594.014
40


26594.015
41


26594.016
42


26594.017
43


26594.018
44


26594.019
45


26594.020
46


26594.021
47


26594.022
48


26594.023
49


26594.024
50


26594.025
51


26594.026
52


26594.027
53


26594.028
54


26594.029
55


26594.030
56


26594.031
57


26594.032
58


26594.033
59


26594.034
60


26594.035
61


26594.036
62


26594.037
63


26594.038
64


26594.039
65


26594.040
66


26594.041
67


26594.042
68


26594.043
69


26594.044
70


26594.045
71


26594.046
72


26594.047
73


26594.048
74


26594.049
75


26594.050
76


26594.051
77


26594.052
78


26594.053
79


26594.054
80


26594.055
81


26594.056
82


26594.057
83


26594.058
84


26594.059
85


26594.060
86


26594.094
87


26594.095
88


26594.096
89


26594.097
90


26594.098
91


26594.099
92


26594.100
93


26594.061
94


26594.062
95


26594.063
96


26594.064
97


26594.065
98


26594.066
99


26594.067
100


26594.068
101


26594.069
102


26594.070
103


26594.071
104


26594.072
105


26594.073
106


26594.074
107


26594.075
108


26594.076
109


26594.077
110


26594.078
111


26594.079
112


26594.080
113


26594.081
114


26594.082
115


26594.083
116


26594.084
117


26594.085
118


26594.086
119


26594.087
120


26594.088
121


26594.089
122


26594.090
123


26594.091
124


26594.092
125


26594.093
(127)

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

NOVEMBER 8, 2005

128


26594.101
129


26594.102
130


26594.103
131


26594.104
132


26594.105
133


26594.106
134


26594.107
135


26594.108
136


26594.109
137


26594.110
138


26594.111
139


26594.112
140


26594.113
141


26594.114
142


26594.115
143


26594.116
144


26594.117
145


26594.118
146


26594.119
147


26594.120
148


26594.121
149


26594.122
150


26594.123
151


26594.124
152


26594.125
153


26594.126
154


26594.127
155


26594.128
156


26594.129
157


26594.130
158


26594.131
159


26594.132
160


26594.133
161


26594.134
162


26594.135
163


26594.136
164


26594.137
165


26594.138
166


26594.139
167


26594.140
168


26594.141
169


26594.142
170


26594.143
171


26594.144
172


26594.145
173


26594.146
174


26594.147
175


26594.148
176


26594.149
177


26594.150
178


26594.151
179


26594.152
180


26594.153
181


26594.154
182


26594.155
183


26594.156
184


26594.157
185


26594.158
186


26594.159
187


26594.160
188


26594.161
189


26594.162
190


26594.163
191


26594.164
192


26594.165
193


26594.166
194


26594.167
195


26594.168
196


26594.169
197


26594.170
198


26594.171
199


26594.172
200


26594.173
201


26594.174
202


26594.175
203


26594.176
204


26594.177
205


26594.178
206


26594.179
207


26594.180
208


26594.181
209


26594.182
210


26594.183
211


26594.184
212


26594.185
213


26594.186
214


26594.187
215


26594.188
216


26594.189
217


26594.190
218


26594.191
219


26594.192
220


26594.193
221


26594.194
222


26594.195
223


26594.196
224


26594.197
225


26594.198
226


26594.199
227


26594.200
228


26594.201
229


26594.202
230


26594.203
231


26594.204
232


26594.205
233


26594.206
234


26594.207
235


26594.208
236


26594.209
237


26594.210
238


26594.211
239


26594.212
240


26594.213
241


26594.214
242


26594.215
243


26594.216
244


26594.217
245


26594.218
246


26594.219
247


26594.220
248


26594.221
249


26594.222
250


26594.223
251


26594.224
252


26594.225
253


26594.226
254


26594.227
255


26594.228
256


26594.229
257


26594.230
258


26594.231
259


26594.232
260


26594.233
261


26594.234
262


26594.235
263


26594.236
264


26594.237
265


26594.238
266


26594.239
267


26594.240
268


26594.241
269


26594.242
270


26594.243
271


26594.244
272


26594.245
273


26594.246
274


26594.247
275


26594.248
276


26594.249
277


26594.250
278


26594.251
279


26594.252
280


26594.253
281


26594.254
282


26594.255
283


26594.256
284


26594.257
285


26594.258
286


26594.259
287


26594.260
288


26594.261
289


26594.262
290


26594.263
291


26594.264
292


26594.265
293


26594.266
294


26594.267
295


26594.268
296


26594.269
297


26594.270
298


26594.271
299


26594.272
300


26594.273
301


26594.274
302


26594.275
303


26594.276
304


26594.277
305


26594.278
306


26594.279
307


26594.280
308


26594.281
309


26594.282
310


26594.283
311


26594.284
312


26594.285
313


26594.286
314


26594.287
315


26594.288
316


26594.289
317


26594.290
318


26594.291
319


26594.292
320


26594.293
321


26594.294
322


26594.295
323


26594.296
324


26594.297
325


26594.298
326


26594.299
327


26594.300
328


26594.301
329


26594.302
330


26594.303
331


26594.304
332


26594.305
333


26594.306
334


26594.307
335


26594.308
336


26594.309
337


26594.310
338


26594.311
339


26594.312
340


26594.313
341


26594.314
342


26594.315
343


26594.316
344


26594.317
345


26594.318
346


26594.319
347


26594.320
348


26594.321
349


26594.322
350


26594.323
351


26594.324
352


26594.325
353


26594.326
354


26594.327
355


26594.328
356


26594.329
357


26594.330
358


26594.331
359


26594.332
360


26594.333
361


26594.334
362


26594.335
363


26594.336
364


26594.337
365


26594.338
366


26594.339
367


26594.340
368


26594.341
369


26594.342
370


26594.343
371


26594.344
372


26594.345
373


26594.346
374


26594.347
375


26594.348
376


26594.349
377


26594.350
378


26594.351
379


26594.352
380


26594.353
381


26594.354
382


26594.355
383


26594.356
384


26594.357
385


26594.358
386


26594.359
387


26594.360
388


26594.361
389


26594.362
390


26594.363
391


26594.364
392


26594.365
393


26594.366
394


26594.367
395


26594.368
396


26594.369
397


26594.370
398


26594.371
399


26594.372
400


26594.373
401


26594.374
402


26594.375
403


26594.376
404


26594.377
405


26594.378
406


26594.379
407


26594.380
408


26594.381
409


26594.382
410


26594.383
411


26594.384
412


26594.385
413


26594.386
414


26594.387
415


26594.388
416


26594.389
417


26594.390
418


26594.391
419


26594.392
420


26594.393
421


26594.394
422


26594.395
423


26594.396
424


26594.397
425


26594.398
426


26594.399
427


26594.400
428


26594.301
429


26594.302
430


26594.303
431


26594.304
432


26594.305
433


26594.306
434


26594.307
435


26594.308
436


26594.309
437


26594.310
438


26594.311
439


26594.312
440


26594.313
441


26594.314
442


26594.315
443


26594.316
444


26594.317
445


26594.318
446


26594.319
447


26594.320
448


26594.321
449


26594.322
450


26594.323
451


26594.324
452


26594.325
453


26594.326
454


26594.327
455


26594.328
456


26594.329
457


26594.330
458


26594.331
459


26594.332
460


26594.333
461


26594.334
462


26594.335
463


26594.336
464


26594.337
465


26594.338
466


26594.339
467


26594.340
468


26594.341
469


26594.342
470


26594.343
471


26594.344
472


26594.345
473


26594.346
474


26594.347
475


26594.348
476


26594.349
477


26594.350
478


26594.351
479


26594.352
480


26594.353
481


26594.354
482


26594.355
483


26594.356
484


26594.357
485


26594.358
486


26594.359
487


26594.360
488


26594.361
489


26594.362
490


26594.363
491


26594.364
492


26594.365
493


26594.366
494


26594.367
495


26594.368
496


26594.369
497


26594.370
498


26594.371
499


26594.372
500


26594.373
501


26594.374
502


26594.375
503


26594.376
504


26594.377
505


26594.378
506


26594.379
507


26594.380
508


26594.381
509


26594.382
510


26594.383
511


26594.384
512


26594.385
513


26594.386
514


26594.387
515


26594.388
516


26594.389
517


26594.390
518


26594.391
519


26594.392
520


26594.393
521


26594.394
522


26594.395
523


26594.396
524


26594.397
525


26594.398
526


26594.399
527


26594.400
528


26594.401
529


26594.402
530


26594.403
531


26594.404
532


26594.405
533


26594.406
534


26594.407
535


26594.408
536


26594.409
537


26594.410
538


26594.411
539


26594.412
540


26594.413
541


26594.414
542


26594.415
543


26594.416
544


26594.417
545


26594.418
546


26594.419
547


26594.420
548


26594.421
549


26594.422
550


26594.423
551


26594.424
552


26594.425
553


26594.426
554


26594.427
555


26594.428
556


26594.429
557


26594.430
558


26594.431
559


26594.432
560


26594.433
561


26594.434
562


26594.435
563


26594.436
564


26594.437
565


26594.438
566


26594.439
567


26594.440
568


26594.441
569


26594.442
570


26594.444
571


26594.445
572


26594.446
573


26594.447
574


26594.448
575


26594.449
576


26594.450
577


26594.451
578


26594.452
579


26594.453
580


26594.454
581


26594.455
582


26594.456
583


26594.457
584


26594.458
585


26594.459
586


26594.460
587


26594.461
588


26594.462
589


26594.463
590


26594.464
591


26594.465
592


26594.466
593


26594.467
594


26594.468
595


26594.469
596


26594.470
597


26594.471
598


26594.472
599


26594.473
600


26594.474
601


26594.475
602


26594.476
603


26594.477
604


26594.478
605


26594.479
606


26594.480
607


26594.481
608


26594.482
609


26594.483
610


26594.484
611


26594.485
612


26594.486
613


26594.487
614


26594.488
615


26594.489
616


26594.490
617


26594.491
618


26594.492
619


26594.493
620


26594.494
621


26594.495
622


26594.496
623


26594.497
624


26594.498
625


26594.499
626


26594.500
627


26594.501
628


26594.502
629


26594.503
630


26594.504
631


26594.505
632


26594.506
633


26594.507
634


26594.508
635


26594.509
636


26594.510
637


26594.511
638


26594.512
639


26594.513
640


26594.514
641


26594.515
642


26594.516
643


26594.517
644


26594.518
645


26594.519
646


26594.520
647


26594.521
648


26594.522
649


26594.523
650


26594.524
651


26594.525
652


26594.526
653


26594.527
654


26594.528
655


26594.529
656


26594.530
657


26594.531
658


26594.532
659


26594.533
660


26594.534
661


26594.535
662


26594.536
663


26594.537
664


26594.538
665


26594.539
666


26594.540
667


26594.541
668


26594.542
669


26594.543
670


26594.544
671


26594.545
672


26594.546
673


26594.547
674


26594.548
675


26594.549
676


26594.550
677


26594.551
678


26594.552
679


26594.553
680


26594.554
681


26594.556
682


26594.557
683


26594.558
684


26594.559
685


26594.560
686


26594.561
687


26594.562
688


26594.563
689


26594.564
690


26594.565
691


26594.566
692


26594.567
693


26594.568
694


26594.569
695


26594.570
696


26594.571
697


26594.572
698


26594.573
699


26594.574
700


26594.575
701


26594.576
702


26594.577
703


26594.578
704


26594.579
705


26594.580
706


26594.581
707


26594.582
708


26594.583
709


26594.584
710


26594.585
711


26594.586
712


26594.587
713


26594.588
714


26594.589
715


26594.590
716


26594.591
717


26594.592
718


26594.593
719


26594.594
720


26594.595
721


26594.596
722


26594.597
723


26594.598
724


26594.599
725


26594.600
726


26594.601
727


26594.602
728


26594.603
729


26594.604
730


26594.605
731


26594.606
732


26594.607
733


26594.608
734


26594.609
735


26594.610
736


26594.611
737


26594.612
738


26594.613
739


26594.614
740


26594.615
741


26594.616
742


26594.617
743


26594.618
744


26594.619
745


26594.620
746


26594.621
747


26594.622
748


26594.623
749


26594.624
750


26594.625
751


26594.626
752


26594.627
753


26594.628
754


26594.629
755


26594.630
756


26594.631
757


26594.632
758


26594.633
759


26594.634
760


26594.635
761


26594.636
762


26594.637
763


26594.638
764


26594.639
765


26594.640
766


26594.641
767


26594.642
768


26594.643
769


26594.644
770


26594.645
771


26594.646
772


26594.647
773


26594.648
774


26594.649
775


26594.650
776


26594.651
777


26594.652
778


26594.653
779


26594.654
780


26594.655
781


26594.656
782


26594.657
783


26594.658
784


26594.659
785


26594.660
786


26594.661
787


26594.662
788


26594.663
789


26594.664
790


26594.665
791


26594.666
792


26594.667
793


26594.668
794


26594.669
795


26594.670
796


26594.671
797


26594.672
798


26594.673
799


26594.674
800


26594.675
801


26594.676
802


26594.677
803


26594.678
804


26594.679
805


26594.680
806


26594.681
807


26594.682
808


26594.683
809


26594.684
810


26594.685
811


26594.686
812


26594.687
813


26594.688
814


26594.689
815


26594.690
816


26594.691
817


26594.692
818


26594.693
819


26594.694
820


26594.695
821


26594.696
822


26594.697
823


26594.698
824


26594.699
825


26594.700
826


26594.701
827


26594.702
828


26594.703
829


26594.704
830


26594.705
831


26594.706
832


26594.707
833


26594.708
834


26594.709
835


26594.710
836


26594.711
837


26594.712
838


26594.713
839


26594.714
840


26594.715
841


26594.716
842


26594.717
843


26594.718
844


26594.719
845


26594.720
846


26594.721
847


26594.722
848


26594.723
849


26594.724
850


26594.725
851


26594.726
852


26594.727
853


26594.728
854


26594.729
855


26594.730
856


26594.731
857


26594.732
858


26594.733
859


26594.734
860


26594.735
861


26594.736
862


26594.737
863


26594.738
864


26594.739
865


26594.740
866


26594.741
867


26594.742
868


26594.743
869


26594.744
870


26594.745
871


26594.746
872


26594.747
873


26594.748
874


26594.749
875


26594.750
876


26594.751
877


26594.752
878


26594.753
879


26594.754
880


26594.755
881


26594.756
882


26594.757
883


26594.758
884


26594.759
885


26594.760
886


26594.761
887


26594.762
888


26594.763
889


26594.764
890


26594.765
891


26594.766
892


26594.767
893


26594.768
894


26594.769
895


26594.770
896


26594.771
897


26594.772
898


26594.773
899


26594.774
900


26594.775
901


26594.776
902


26594.777
903


26594.778
904


26594.779
905


26594.780
906


26594.781
907


26594.782
908


26594.783
909


26594.784
910


26594.785
911


26594.786
912


26594.787
913


26594.788
914


26594.789
915


26594.790
916


26594.791
917


26594.792
918


26594.793
919


26594.794
920


26594.795
921


26594.796
922


26594.797
923


26594.798
924


26594.799
925


26594.800
926


26594.801
927


26594.802
928


26594.803
929


26594.804
930


26594.805
931


26594.806
932


26594.807
933


26594.808
934


26594.809
935


26594.810
936


26594.811
937


26594.812
938


26594.813
939


26594.814
940


26594.815
941


26594.816
942


26594.817
943


26594.818
944


26594.819
945


26594.820
946


26594.821
947


26594.822
948


26594.823
949


26594.824
950


26594.825
951


26594.826
952


26594.827
953


26594.828
954


26594.829
955


26594.830
956


26594.831
957


26594.832
958


26594.833
959


26594.834
960


26594.835
961


26594.836
962


26594.837
963


26594.838
964


26594.839
965


26594.840
966


26594.841
967


26594.842
968


26594.843
969


26594.844
970


26594.845
971


26594.846
972


26594.847
973


26594.848
974


26594.849
975


26594.850
976


26594.851
977


26594.852
978


26594.853
979


26594.854
980


26594.855
981


26594.856
982


26594.857
983


26594.858
984


26594.859
985


26594.860
986


26594.861
987


26594.862
988


26594.863
989


26594.864
990


26594.865
991


26594.866
992


26594.867
993


26594.868
994


26594.869
995


26594.870
996


26594.871
997


26594.872
998


26594.873
999


26594.874
1000


26594.875
1001


26594.876
1002


26594.877
1003


26594.878
1004


26594.879
1005


26594.880
1006


26594.881
1007


26594.882
1008


26594.883
1009


26594.884
1010


26594.885
1011


26594.886
1012


26594.887
1013


26594.888
1014


26594.889
1015


26594.890
1016


26594.891
1017


26594.892
1018


26594.893
1019


26594.894
1020


26594.895
1021


26594.896
1022


26594.897
1023


26594.898
1024


26594.899
1025


26594.900
1026


26594.901
1027


26594.902
1028


26594.903
1029


26594.904
1030


26594.905
1031


26594.906
1032


26594.907
1033


26594.908
1034


26594.909
1035


26594.910
1036


26594.911
1037


26594.912
1038


26594.913
1039


26594.914
1040


26594.915
1041


26594.916
1042


26594.917
1043


26594.918
1044


26594.919
1045


26594.920
1046


26594.921
1047


26594.922
1048


26594.923
1049


26594.924
1050


26594.925
1051


26594.926
1052


26594.927
1053


26594.928
1054


26594.929
1055


26594.930
1056


26594.931
1057


26594.932
1058


26594.933
1059


26594.934
1060


26594.935
1061


26594.936
1062


26594.937
1063


26594.938
1064


26594.939
1065


26594.940
1066


26594.941
1067


26594.942
1068


26594.943
1069


26594.945
1070


26594.946
1071


26594.947
1072


26594.948
1073


26594.949
1074


26594.950
1075


26594.951
1076


26594.952
1077


26594.953
1078


26594.954
1079


26594.955
1080


26594.956
1081


26594.957
1082


26594.958
1083


26594.959
1084


26594.960
1085


26594.961
1086


26594.962
1087


26594.963
1088


26594.964
1089


26594.965
1090


26594.966
1091


26594.967
1092


26594.968
1093


26594.969
1094


26594.970
1095


26594.971
1096


26594.972
1097


26594.973
1098


26594.974
1099


26594.975
1100


26594.976
1101


26594.977
1102


26594.978
1103


26594.979
1104


26594.980
1105


26594.981
1106

Æ


26594.982