Page 1 of 330 The Monthly National Legislation Report 7/5/2010 ...

The Monthly National Legislation Reporthttp://mnlreport.typepad.com/Page 92 of 3307/5/2010 “(APHIS) is required to publish a compliance guide pursuant to Section 212 of the SmallBusiness Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.”In light of these comments, I anticipate that APHIS will either withdraw the Proposed Regulation, or publish an amended Proposed Regulation, which will require a new public comment period and greaterscrutiny from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Significantly, OIRA has the authority to stop the publication of any regulatory regulation!FEDERALHR3501 – The Happy Act - Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (“HAPPY”) ActTitle: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses. Sponsor: Rep. McCotter, Thaddeus G. (introduced 7/31/2009) Cosponsors(1) Latest Major Action: 7/31/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to theHouse Committee on Ways and Means.The Library of Congress link here.A BILLTo amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This Act may be cited as the `Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act'.SEC. 2. FINDINGS.The Congress finds the following:(1) According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63 percent of United States households own a pet.(2) The Human-Animal Bond has been shown to have positive effects upon people's emotional and physical well-being.SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR PET CARE EXPENSES.(a) In General- Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional itemized deductions for individuals) is amended byredesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting after section 223 the following new section:`SEC. 224. PET CARE EXPENSES.`(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses ofthe taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer.`(b) Maximum Deduction- The amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $3,500.`(c) Qualified Pet Care Expenses- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified pet care expenses' means amounts paid in connection with providing care (includingveterinary care) for a qualified pet other than any expense in connection with the acquisition of the qualified pet.`(d) Qualified Pet- For purposes of this section--`(1) QUALIFIED PET- The term `qualified pet' means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.`(2) EXCEPTIONS- Such term does not include any animal--`(A) used for research or owned or utilized in conjunction with a trade or business, or`(B) with respect to which the taxpayer has claimed a deduction under section 162 or 213 in any of the preceding 3 taxable years.'.(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the last item and inserting the following newitems:`Sec. 224. Pet care expenses.`Sec. 225. Cross reference.'.(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.Additional info:A bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill marries two feel-good propositions — tax cuts and pet ownership — to generate a novel idea: A tax break of up to $3,500 per person for pet careexpenses. The measure is a legislative long shot. But it’s been championed by a veteran Hollywood tough guy and by a conservative Michigan congressman [Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich], and has drawn the enthusiastic support of animal rights groups eager to promote pet ownership during economic down times. … The tax break would apply to more exotic pets as well,so long as they’re being owned within the bounds of the law. Any “legally owned, domesticated, live animal” would qualify, under the terms of the bill. According to the ASPCA, a cat costsabout $670 a year on average to take care of, while dogs are about $200 a year more expensive. The tax break would be capped at $3,500 per person, regardless of how many animals ataxpayer owned. Davi, the owner of four dogs and a cat, said the concept of using the tax code to promote pet ownership occurred to him a few months ago, in thinking about the stimuluspackage passed by Democrats in Congress — a package, he said, that he opposed. Davi’s cousin runs a prominent California animal rescue foundation, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue, and is alwayslooking for ideas that would get more pets adopted, he said. Why not let people deduct expenses like pet food and veterinarian bills from their taxes, like child care expenses or mortgageinterest can help reduce your tax burden?S1709 – HR3519 - (10/21/09)- The Senate version of the Veterinarian Services Investment Act was introduced Sept. 24 by Democrat Debbie Stabenow of Michigan with support from RepublicanJohn Thune of South Dakota and the backing of a bipartisan slate of 19 additional co-sponsors. The Senate bill (S. 1709) is the companion bill to H.R. 3519, which was brought before the House inJuly. Both bills would establish a competitive grants program to relieve the nation's veterinary shortages and support various related activities, including recruitment, retention, and continuingeducation programs for veterinarians and veterinary technicians. More than 90 organizations have endorsed the VSIA, including every state veterinary medical association, specialty boards, and farm groups. A few important differencesexist between S. 1709 and H.R. 3519. In the Senate version, grant recipients are required to match federal funds with 25 percent of in-kind support, whereas the House bill mandates a higher rate of 50 percent."A lower funding threshold, especially in times whenbudgets are so tight, is really necessary," said Gina Luke, an assistant director of the AVMA Governmental Relations Division. The AVMA has played a key role in getting VSIA introduced in Congress. In addition, S. 1709 includes language directing theAgriculture secretary to promulgate regulations implementing the grant program within one year of enactment. The House bill does not. And finally, the titles of the bills vary slightly: H.R. 3519 is the Veterinarian Services Investment Act while S. 1709 is theVeterinary Services Investment Act. The AVMA prefers the latter title. Neither bill specifies a dollar amount, only "such sums as necessary" to fulfill the objectives outlined in the legislation. S. 1709 was referred to the Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 3519 hasbeen under consideration by the House Agriculture Committee since July. H.R. 3519 has 30 bipartisan co-sponsors. The day the Senate bill was introduced, Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska spoke on the House floor about why the VSIA is needed to ease thenational shortage of food animal veterinarians. The AVMA's Gina Luke said the Association has a strategy to get the VSIA passed in the current 111th Congress, and it includes a vibrant grassroots campaign involving AVMA members. Go tohttp://thomas.loc.gov/to see who's supporting the bill. Type in the bill number and select co-sponsors. Also visit the AVMA-CAN Government Action Center on the AVMA Web site (www.avma.org) by clicking on "Get Involved" in theAdvocacy section. For more information about the bill, contact Gina Luke at the GRD at (800) 321-1473, Ext. 3204, or at gluke@avma.org.(10/22/09)- It started with Tuesday but passed on a Thursday. U.S. Sen. Al Franken’s first piece of legislation -- to create a pilot program to get disabled military veterans about 200