Goldie’s Act

Bill Number

H.R. 349

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Animals

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-02-14: Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.

Last Updated

2026-06-25T08:09:03Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The legislation, titled "Goldie's Act" (H.R. 349), aims to strengthen enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by expanding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) authority to inspect, investigate, and penalize violations related to animal care. It focuses on protecting animals from harm by addressing deficiencies in compliance more aggressively.

Key Provisions

• Definition of Violation: Broadly defines a "violation" under the AWA as any failure to comply with its provisions, regulations, or standards, including deficiencies or deviations.
• Inspections and Investigations: Requires the USDA Secretary to conduct annual inspections of regulated facilities (e.g., dealers, exhibitors, research facilities) and document violations in detail. Follow-up inspections must continue until issues are resolved.
• Animal Confiscation and Destruction: Empowers USDA inspectors to promptly confiscate or humanely destroy animals found suffering physical or psychological harm due to non-compliance. This applies to animals held by regulated entities (e.g., dealers, exhibitors, research facilities) that are no longer needed for research. Entities are prohibited from destroying such animals without USDA approval during the process.
• Agency Cooperation: Mandates that the USDA share records of violations with state, local, and municipal animal control or law enforcement officials within 24 hours of an inspection or investigation.
• Penalties and Enforcement:
• Increases civil penalties to up to $10,000 per violation, with each day of continued violation and each affected animal counting separately.
• Requires a cease-and-desist order for violations.
• Provides notice via inspection reports and an opportunity for a hearing, conducted by at least one veterinarian and two animal care specialists, within 21 days (unless delayed for good reason).
• Factors in business size, violation severity, good faith, and prior history when setting penalties, but limits reductions to less than 10%. Establishes internal USDA guidelines to ensure consistent and deterrent penalties.
• Allows the USDA to seek court enforcement for unpaid penalties or non-compliance with orders, with additional $1,500 fines for ignoring cease-and-desist directives.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Expands the USDA's inspection mandate from periodic to annual for all regulated entities, with mandatory follow-ups and detailed violation records—previously, inspections were less structured.
• Introduces new powers for immediate animal confiscation or humane euthanasia, which were not explicitly outlined before, along with restrictions on entities destroying animals during investigations.
• Adds a 24-hour requirement to notify local authorities of violations, promoting inter-agency collaboration not previously required.
• Raises civil penalties significantly (from prior levels, often lower and less granular) to $10,000 per violation/day/animal, ties them more strictly to guidelines, and streamlines hearings while limiting penalty reductions. It also clarifies appeal processes to federal courts.

Potential Impacts

• Government Agencies: Increases USDA workload and resources needed for inspections, hearings, and guideline development; fosters better coordination with local law enforcement, potentially leading to more efficient violation resolutions.
• Citizens and Animals: Enhances animal welfare by enabling quicker removal from harmful conditions, benefiting pets, research animals, and exhibited animals. Public trust in federal oversight may improve, though it could raise operational costs for compliant businesses passed to consumers.
• International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but stronger U.S. animal welfare enforcement could align with global standards (e.g., in trade or research collaborations), potentially influencing international perceptions of U.S. policies.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Regulated Entities: Dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, intermediate handlers, carriers, and auction operators, who face heightened scrutiny, penalties, and restrictions on animal handling.
• Government Bodies: USDA (primary enforcer), local/state animal control and law enforcement (receivers of violation reports), and federal courts (for appeals and collections).
• Animals and Advocates: Animals in regulated settings benefit from protections; animal welfare organizations and the public gain from stricter accountability.
• Businesses and Researchers: Those in animal-related industries may incur higher compliance costs, while ethical operations could see reduced competition from violators.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens administrative enforcement under the AWA without altering core licensing requirements; ensures due process through hearings and appeals, aligning with constitutional standards for fair notice and opportunity to respond. The per-animal/per-day penalty structure could lead to substantial fines, prompting more litigation over violation definitions.
• Constitutional: No direct challenges anticipated, as it builds on existing federal authority over interstate commerce in animals; however, confiscation powers might raise Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) questions if not balanced with probable cause standards.
• Political: Bipartisan support (introduced by representatives from both parties) signals broad consensus on animal welfare; could energize advocacy groups while facing pushback from industries concerned about regulatory burdens. It promotes a deterrent-focused approach, potentially setting precedents for similar enhancements in other environmental or welfare laws.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]

Cosponsors (94)

Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4], Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3], Rep. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1], Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Gimenez, Carlos A. [R-FL-28], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17], Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3], Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3], Rep. LaLota, Nick [R-NY-1], Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46], Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20], Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-25], Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17], Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6], Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4], Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40], Rep. Perez, Marie Gluesenkamp [D-WA-3], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Sherrill, Mikie [D-NJ-11], Rep. Neal, Richard E. [D-MA-1], Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5], Rep. Tran, Derek [D-CA-45], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Latimer, George [D-NY-16], Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Sorensen, Eric [D-IL-17], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Vindman, Eugene [D-VA-7], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4] and 44 more

Recent Actions

• 2025-02-14: Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
• 2025-01-13: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
• 2025-01-13: Introduced in House
• 2025-01-13: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Goldie’s Act — issued 2025-01-13 — PDF (6 pages)