PAAW Act

Bill Number

H.R. 4698

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Health

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-07-23: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Last Updated

2026-05-08T08:05:56Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Preventing Animal Abuse and Waste Act (PAAW Act) aims to protect dogs and cats from unnecessary suffering in federally funded medical research by prohibiting the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from conducting or supporting studies that cause them significant pain or distress.

Key Provisions

• Prohibition on NIH Research: The NIH Director is barred from conducting or funding any research involving dogs or cats that results in significant pain or distress.
• Definition of Prohibited Research: "Significant pain or distress" is defined as any study assigned to pain category D (pain or distress that is severe but can be alleviated by drugs) or E (severe pain or distress that cannot be alleviated by drugs), based on categories set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Animal Welfare Act (a federal law regulating the care of animals in research, testing, and exhibition).
• Implementation Timeline: The ban takes effect 90 days after the bill becomes law.
• Legislative Amendment: Adds a new section (447E) to Subpart 6 of Part C of Title IV of the Public Health Service Act, which governs NIH activities.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces a specific federal prohibition targeting dogs and cats in NIH research, building on the broader Animal Welfare Act (which already requires minimizing animal pain but does not outright ban certain categories for specific species in NIH-funded work).
• Shifts from general guidelines on animal welfare to a categorical ban on high-pain research for these animals, potentially requiring NIH to reclassify or halt ongoing projects.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The NIH may need to review and redirect funding from affected research projects, increasing administrative burdens and possibly shifting resources to alternative models (e.g., computer simulations or other animals). The USDA's pain categories remain unchanged but gain heightened enforcement in NIH contexts.
• On Citizens: Animal welfare advocates and pet owners could see reduced instances of suffering for dogs and cats in labs, potentially improving public trust in federal research. However, patients relying on biomedical advancements (e.g., in disease treatments) might experience delays if dog or cat models are essential for certain studies.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could influence U.S. collaborations with global research institutions that use different animal welfare standards, potentially affecting joint projects or data sharing.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• NIH and Researchers: Federally funded scientists using dogs or cats in experiments will face restrictions, possibly needing to seek alternative funding or methods.
• Animal Welfare Organizations: Groups like the Humane Society or ASPCA stand to benefit from stronger protections.
• Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Industries: Companies partnering with NIH may encounter project disruptions, affecting drug development timelines.
• General Public: Taxpayers funding NIH (about $47 billion annually) could see shifts in how research dollars are allocated, with indirect benefits to animal lovers and potential drawbacks for medical progress.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens enforcement of animal welfare laws by tying NIH funding directly to USDA pain categories, which could lead to more litigation if researchers challenge the definitions or exemptions. No explicit enforcement mechanism (e.g., penalties) is detailed, relying on existing NIH oversight.
• Constitutional: Aligns with the government's authority to regulate federal spending and public health research under the Commerce Clause; unlikely to raise First Amendment issues as it targets funding rather than speech.
• Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (from both Republican and Democratic members) suggests broad appeal on animal rights, but could spark debates in Congress over balancing ethical concerns with scientific needs, especially amid ongoing discussions on research ethics post-COVID.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]

Cosponsors (15)

Rep. Soto, Darren [D-FL-9], Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-23], Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Webster, Daniel [R-FL-11], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27], Rep. Gillen, Laura [D-NY-4], Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2], Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]

Recent Actions

• 2025-07-23: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• 2025-07-23: Introduced in House
• 2025-07-23: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Preventing Animal Abuse and Waste Act — issued 2025-07-23 — PDF (2 pages)