HR-9319-119
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsored by Ted Lieu (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Animal Welfare Act to create a federal program under which the Secretary of Agriculture would enter into cooperative agreements with state and local governments to fund microchipping of dogs and cats at public and qualifying private animal shelters. Microchipping would be required before an animal is returned to its owner, adopted, or transferred to another shelter or rescue organization. The bill would authorize $5 million per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, and would require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress by December 31, 2030, assessing the program's effectiveness and recommending whether to extend it.
Who benefits
Pet owners whose lost animals pass through shelters and can be more reliably identified and returned. Adopters who receive animals with permanent identification. Animal shelters and rescue organizations that would receive federal funding to offset microchipping costs. Veterinarians and microchip manufacturers who may see increased demand. State and local governments that currently bear the full cost of animal control programs. Animals themselves, who face lower risk of euthanasia when owners can be identified.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who fund the $5 million annual appropriation. Private shelters not under contract with a state or local government, which would be ineligible for cooperative agreements. Pet owners who may face new microchipping requirements as a condition of reclaiming their animals. Shelters in jurisdictions that choose not to participate, which would receive no federal support but may face competitive disadvantage relative to participating shelters.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that microchipping is one of the most effective tools for reuniting lost pets with their owners — studies, including a Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association analysis, have found microchipped dogs are returned to owners at more than twice the rate of non-microchipped dogs. They contend that the $25 million authorized over five years is a modest federal investment that reduces shelter overcrowding, lowers euthanasia rates, and relieves pressure on local animal control budgets, while the cooperative agreement structure preserves state and local control over implementation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that animal shelter operations are traditionally a state and local responsibility, and that creating a new federal grant program — even a small one — sets a precedent for federal involvement in an area where localities are better positioned to assess their own needs. They contend that the $5 million annual authorization is too small to meaningfully scale microchipping nationally, and that the funds could be better directed to existing block grant programs that give states broader flexibility to address animal welfare priorities rather than a single mandated intervention.