Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to add cold-blooded animals—including reptiles, amphibians, cephalopods, and fish—to the statutory definition of “animal” when used for research, testing, exhibition, or as pets. It retains existing exclusions for research-bred rats, mice, and birds, horses not used for research, and farmed animals (including livestock, poultry, or fish) used as food, fiber, or for production improvement.
Progressives emphasize closing welfare gaps for cold-blooded animals.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, focused statutory amendment that expands the Animal Welfare Act's definition to include cold-blooded animals.
This bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to add cold-blooded animals—including reptiles, amphibians, cephalopods, and fish—to the statutory definition of “animal” when used for research, testing, exhibition, or as pets.
It retains existing exclusions for research-bred rats, mice, and birds, horses not used for research, and farmed animals (including livestock, poultry, or fish) used as food, fiber, or for production improvement.
Modest chance: plausible House movement with compromise, but Senate hurdles, stakeholder pushback, and unfunded regulatory impacts lower overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, focused statutory amendment that expands the Animal Welfare Act's definition to include cold-blooded animals. The amendment is precisely drafted at the statutory-text level, but it omits fiscal, implementation, boundary-clarifying, and oversight details that would be relevant given the expansion in regulated subjects.
Progressives emphasize closing welfare gaps for cold-blooded animals.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize closing welfare gaps for cold-blooded animals.
Likely broadly supportive: closes a perceived regulatory gap by extending AWA protections to many cold-blooded species used in research and exhibition.
Sees this as aligning law with animal welfare science and moral commitments to reduce suffering.
Cautiously favorable but pragmatic: supports animal welfare aims while worrying about cost, clarity, and unintended impacts on research and aquaculture.
Wants clear scope, phased implementation, and resources for enforcement.
Likely opposed or skeptical: views the bill as an unnecessary federal regulatory expansion that will raise costs, hamper research (including common model species), and intrude on state or institutional authority.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest chance: plausible House movement with compromise, but Senate hurdles, stakeholder pushback, and unfunded regulatory impacts lower overall odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize closing welfare gaps for cold-blooded animals.
Modest chance: plausible House movement with compromise, but Senate hurdles, stakeholder pushback, and unfunded regulatory impacts lower ov…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, focused statutory amendment that expands the Animal Welfare Act's definition to include cold-blooded animals. The amendment is precisely drafted at the st…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.