    [Senate Hearing 108-764]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 108-764

                    ANIMAL RIGHTS: ACTIVISM VS. CRIMINALITY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 18, 2004

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-108-76

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    98-179                      WASHINGTON : 2005
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
    CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa            PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
    JON KYL, Arizona                     JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio                    HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
    LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho                CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
    SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia             RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
                 Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
          Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                       Page

    Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah......     1
        prepared statement...........................................    62
    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
      prepared statement.............................................    67

                                   WITNESSES

    Blum, Jonathan, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, Yum!
      Brands, Louisville, Kentucky...................................    11
    Green, William, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Chiron
      Corporation, Emeryville, California............................     9
    Lewis, John E., Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism
      Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of
      Justice, Washington, D.C.......................................     2
    Scott, McGregor W., U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of
      California, Sacramento, California.............................     5
    Zola, Stuart M., Director, Yerkes National Primate Research
      Laboratory, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of
      the National Association for Biomedical Research...............    13

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    Responses of John Lewis to questions submitted by Senator Leahy..    23
    Responses of McGregor Scott to questions submitted by Senator
      Leahy..........................................................    26

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Blum, Jonathan, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, Yum!
      Brands, Louisville, Kentucky, prepared statement...............    30
    Green, William, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Chiron
      Corporation, Emeryville, California, prepared statement........    39
    Human Society of the United States, Wayne Pacell, Chief Executive
      Officer, Washington, D.C., letter and attachment...............    64
    Lewis, John E., Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism
      Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of
      Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement..................    70
    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Lisa Lange, Vice
      President of Communications, Norfolk, Virginia, statement and
      attachments....................................................    77
    Scott, McGregor W., U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of
      California, Sacramento, California, prepared statement.........   130
    Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, Alabama, article and
      attachment.....................................................   137
    Zola, Stuart M., Director, Yerkes National Primate Research
      Laboratory, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of
      the National Association for Biomedical Research...............   147

                    ANIMAL RIGHTS: ACTIVISM VS. CRIMINALITY

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
    room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G.
    Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senator Hatch.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
                           THE STATE OF UTAH

        Chairman Hatch. Good morning. I want to thank everybody for
    joining us today to examine the issue of when legitimate animal
    rights activism crosses over into illegal criminal acts. We
    have some very distinguished panelists with us today and we
    look forward to hearing from them.
        As everyone in this room is very well aware, the right to
    demonstrate, to protest and to make your voice heard is as
    deeply embedded in the American political fabric as is any
    other right that we collectively hold dear. We cannot and we
    will not violate that right. However, where political activism
    breaches peaceful protest and dives head-first into criminal
    conduct, we can, should and will use every mechanism available
    to prosecute the individuals responsible.
        One area where it is abundantly clear that fringe activists
    have resorted to criminal conduct is where academic and
    commercial enterprises are conducting legitimate animal
    testing. In recent years, some radical activist groups have
    gone well beyond what any reasonably-minded person would
    consider legitimate protest.
        Their tactics include vandalizing and pipe-bombing research
    facilities, credit card fraud, threatening employees of
    businesses and research companies, terrorizing children of
    employees, and posting death threats against employees, as well
    as employees' names, addresses and phone numbers, on the
    Internet.
        These extremists target researchers, farmers, circuses and
    other lawful, productive and beneficial organizations. There
    have been numerous bombings and vandalisms against farmers in
    my home State of Utah. A mink breeders' co-op in Murray, Utah,
    has been attacked and fire-bombed. The farmers' names,
    addresses and phone numbers have been posted on the Internet,
    together with complete instructions on how to build bombs and
    how to cover up any trace of the crime.
        For instance, the instructions on how to make milk jug fire
    bombs came with this caution, quote, ``Arson is a big-time
    felony, so wear gloves and old clothes you can throw away
    throughout the entire process, and be very careful not to leave
    a single shred of evidence,'' unquote. Now, that is shocking,
    to say the least.
        Additionally, as most of you know, I have long been devoted
    to health-related issues. These actors target what could be
    life-saving research. When research laboratories and university
    researchers are targeted and attacked, the ones who lose most
    are those who are living with a disease or who are watching a
    loved one struggling with a devastating illness.
        Those who target and attack peaceful organizations and
    individuals do not legitimately advance their cause and promise
    no breakthroughs to society. Instead, they only promote a grave
    threat to the well-being and advancement of mankind.
        What is particularly disturbing about these egregious
    tactics is that they are not isolated instances carried out by
    a few persons acting alone. Instead, they are part of a broad,
    carefully-orchestrated and coordinated effort to threaten,
    terrorize and ultimately shut down lawful enterprises by
    systematically targeting their employees and other persons or
    entities who do business with those lawful enterprises.
        Our task here today is to help identify and show the line
    that distinguishes lawful expression and protest from criminal
    behavior. Again, I appreciate everyone taking time to be with
    us today. We will hear from two panels of witnesses. On our
    first will be Mr. McGregor, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
    District of California, and Deputy Assistant Director for
    Domestic Terrorism from the FBI, Mr. John Lewis.
        We welcome both of you here. We are grateful that you would
    take time to come and we look forward to hearing from both of
    you.
        On our second panel is William Green, general counsel of
    the Chiron Corporation; Mr. Jonathan Blum, from Yum!
    Industries, the parent company of Kentucky Fried Chicken; and
    Dr. Stuart Zola from Emory University. So we look forward to
    hearing from the three of you as well.
        We will submit all of the full statements for the record
    and if you could limit your opening remarks to 5 minutes, we
    will then have enough time for questions.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        So let's first begin with you, Mr. Scott. Is that the way
    we are going to go?
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it is okay with you,
    Mr. Lewis will lead off.
        Chairman Hatch. Okay. We will go with Mr. Lewis first and
    then go to Mr. Scott.

        STATEMENT OF JOHN E. LEWIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
      COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
                DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Lewis. Good morning, Chairman Hatch and members of the
    Committee. I am pleased to appear before you and discuss the
    threat posed by animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists in
    this country and related difficulties in addressing this crime
    problem.
        During the past several years, special-interest extremism
    as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front, or ALF, the
    Earth Liberation Front, or ELF, and related extremists has
    emerged as a serious domestic threat. The FBI estimates that
    the ALF and ELF and related groups have committed more than
    1,100 criminal acts in the United States since 1976, and over
    half of them in the last 8 years resulting in approximately
    $110 million in damages.
        The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970's, is
    a loosely organized extremist movement committed to ending the
    abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of ALF
    began its operations in the late 1970's. Individuals become
    members of ALF by engaging in direct action against companies
    or individuals who, in their view, utilize animals for research
    or economic gain, or do some manner of business with those
    companies or individuals.
        Direct action generally occurs in the form of criminal
    activity designed to cause economic loss or to destroy the
    victim's company, operations or property. These efforts have
    broadened to include a multinational campaign of harassment,
    intimidation and coercion against animal testing companies and
    any companies or individuals doing business with those targeted
    companies.
        The targeting of secondary companies typically takes the
    form of harassment of employees and interference with normal
    business operations under the threat of escalating tactics or
    violence. The harassment is designed to inflict increasing
    economic damage until the company terminates its business
    relationship with the principal target.
        The best example of this trend involves Great Britain's
    Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or SHAC, organization, a more
    organized sub-group within the extremist animal rights
    movement. SHAC has waged a sustained campaign against
    Huntingdon Life Sciences and any companies with which HLS
    conducts business.
        Investigation of SHAC-related criminal activity has
    revealed a pattern of vandalism, arsons, animal releases,
    harassing telephone calls, threats and attempts to disrupt
    business activity of not only HLS, but all of the companies
    doing business with HLS. Among many others, these companies
    include Bank of America, Marsh USA, Deloitte and Touche, and
    HLS investors such as Stephens, Incorporated, all of which, and
    more, have since terminated their business relationships with
    HLS.
        In recent years, ALF and ELF have become one of the most
    active criminal extremist elements in the United States.
    Beginning in 2002, their operational philosophy has been
    overshadowed by an escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics.
    Individuals within the movement have discussed actively
    targeting food producers, biomedical researchers and law
    enforcement with physical harm. More disturbing is the use of
    improvised explosive devices against consumer product testing
    companies, accompanied by threats of larger bombings and
    potential assassinations.
        In addition to the upswing in violent rhetoric and tactics,
    new trends have emerged in the ecoterrorist movement and
    include a greater frequency of attacks in more populated areas,
    targeting of sports utility vehicles and arsons of new
    construction homes or commercial properties. It is believed
    these trends will persist as extremists within the
    environmental movement continue to fight what they perceive as
    greater encroachment of human society on the natural world.
        The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a
    limited number of arrests of individuals alleged to have
    perpetrated acts of animal rights extremism or ecoterrorism in
    the past year. These few successes are indicative of how the
    FBI's efforts are hampered by a lack of applicable Federal
    criminal statutes.
        While it is a relatively simple matter to prosecute
    extremists responsible for arsons or the use of explosive
    devices, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to address
    an organized campaign of low-level criminal activity such as
    what is exhibited by SHAC.
        To address the overall problem presented by SHAC and
    related activity claimed by ALF, the FBI and its partners in
    the United States Attorneys' offices nationwide have attempted
    to use the animal enterprise terrorism statute, with just one
    conviction since this statute's passage in 1992. While the
    statute intended to provide a framework for the prosecution of
    individuals involved in animal rights extremism, it does not
    reach many of the criminal activities engaged in by SHAC in
    furtherance of its overall objective of shutting down
    Huntingdon Life Sciences.
        My colleague here today, United States Attorney Greg Scott
    from the Eastern District of California, will speak in greater
    detail on the shortcomings of the AET statute, along with
    proposed amendments. SHAC members are typically quite
    conversant in the elements of the AET statute, and appear to
    engage in conduct that, while criminal, would not result in
    significant, particularly Federal, prosecution.
        Today, more than 35 FBI field offices have over 190 pending
    investigations associated with ALF and/or ELF activities.
    Despite our best efforts, additional tools are needed to
    effectively impact animal rights extremism and ecoterrorism.
    Extremist movements such as ALF and ELF present unique
    challenges. They exhibit remarkable levels of security
    awareness and are typically very knowledgeable of law
    enforcement techniques, as well as the limitations imposed on
    law enforcement.
        In conclusion, the FBI's investigation of animal rights
    extremists and ecoterrorism matters is our highest domestic
    terrorism investigative priority. The FBI and our law
    enforcement partners will continue to address the difficult and
    unique challenges posed by animal rights extremists and
    ecoterrorists.
        Chairman Hatch and members of the Committee, this concludes
    my prepared remarks, and I would like to express my
    appreciation for your consideration of this important issue and
    look forward to responding to any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Lewis. We appreciate
    you being here and appreciate your testimony.
        Mr. Scott, we will turn to you.

    STATEMENT OF MCGREGOR W. SCOTT, U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT
                 OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Scott. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have
    the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
    threat posed by animal enterprise terrorism and ecoterrorism,
    the efforts by the Department of Justice to meet this threat,
    and the Department's proposals for how we can better address
    this threat.
        The difficulty and hardship in investigating and
    prosecuting these types of offenses cannot be overestimated. In
    my own district, in the late 1980's, the University of
    California at Davis was constructing a new veterinary medicine
    school which was burned to the ground by ALF advocates. Just a
    few years ago, we had a BLM wild horse/burro facility in rural
    Modoc County burned to the ground using incendiary devices. We
    have not been able to successfully prosecute anyone in either
    of those instances.
        One of the principal difficulties in prosecuting these
    cases is the inadequate scope of 18 U.S.C. Section 43, which
    makes it a crime to travel in interstate or foreign commerce,
    or use the mail for the purpose of causing damage to an animal
    enterprise. The current animal enterprise terrorism statute is
    insufficient to address the threat posed by terrorist acts
    committed against research laboratories, businesses and other
    entities that use animals.
        At present, the statute applies only when there is, quote,
    ``physical disruption,'' end quote, to the functioning of the
    enterprise that results in damage to or loss of property. As
    Mr. Lewis just told you, enterprises, however, have been harmed
    economically by threats, coercion and other methods of
    intimidation often directed at employees, customers or vendors
    of animal enterprise that do not fall within the existing
    criminal prohibition.
        For example, as was referenced by Mr. Lewis, ALF's Stop
    Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Campaign has targeted an animal
    testing company called Huntingdon Life Sciences. ALF's strategy
    seems to include not only attacks on Huntingdon itself,
    including damaging Huntingdon property and the homes of
    Huntingdon employees, but has also included attacks or threats
    against Huntingdon's insurance carrier, banker and even
    companies that merely trade Huntingdon stock.
        Another example of ALF targeting a secondary or collateral
    entity is the recent bombing of the Shaklee Corporation, a
    California biotech firm. Even though Shaklee is generally
    considered to be a relatively animal-friendly company, its
    associations with other companies, including Huntingdon, has
    made it a target.
        While animal terrorists are increasingly targeting not only
    animal enterprises themselves, such as research facilities and
    companies that engage in animal testing, but also anyone who is
    believed to be engaged in the provision of services to such
    animal enterprises, Federal law does not currently equip the
    Department with the necessary tools to effectively prosecute
    the perpetrators of such conduct.
        The Department therefore supports amending the animal
    enterprise terrorism statute to prohibit the use of threats,
    vandalism, property damage, trespass, persistent and harassing
    communications, intimidation or coercion in order to cause
    economic disruption to an animal enterprise when those crimes
    are part of a larger plan or conspiracy to cause economic
    disruption to an animal enterprise.
        This new offense is needed to address unambiguously
    harassing and threatening conduct directed at animal
    enterprises, as well as their employees, customers or vendors,
    conduct that currently causes substantial economic harm.
        Additionally, the current penalties for those who violate
    the animal enterprise terrorism statute are inadequate and may
    fail to deter much of the criminal conduct prohibited by
    current law. For example, in the absence of death or serious
    bodily injury, those who perpetrate animal enterprise terrorism
    are now eligible for a maximum of 3 years in prison under the
    statute. In many cases, however, such a penalty does not
    reflect the gravity of the offense, and the Department
    therefore supports increasing the existing penalties for animal
    enterprise terrorism in those cases where terrorists cause
    substantial economic damage. If an animal terrorist, for
    example, causes millions of dollars in economic damage to an
    enterprise, he or she should be eligible for more than 3 years'
    imprisonment.
        Finally, the Department supports adding the animal
    enterprise terrorism statute as a predicate for electronic
    surveillance and monitoring. Law enforcement agents currently
    possess the authority to conduct electronic surveillance by
    petitioning a Federal district court judge for a wiretap order
    in the investigation of many terrorism crimes and ordinary non-
    terrorism crimes such as drug crimes, mail fraud and passport
    fraud.
        However, current law does not allow investigators to
    conduct electronic surveillance when investigating animal
    enterprise terrorism. Such surveillance would be helpful in
    preventing this type of terrorism and it should be available
    when investigators have probable cause to believe that an
    individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a
    violation of the animal enterprise terrorism statute and all
    other reasonable means of investigation have been exhausted.
    Given the serious and often violent nature of animal enterprise
    terrorism, the Department urges Congress to correct this
    deficiency in current law.
        In conclusion, animal terrorism and ecoterrorism pose a
    serious threat to the safety and security of our fellow
    citizens. Combatting this threat is a priority for the
    Department of Justice and in order to win this battle, Federal
    prosecutors must have every available tool to effectively
    prosecute this criminal activity.
        As always, the Department stands ready to work with
    Congress to ensure that our efforts are successful. In
    particular, the Department looks forward to working with this
    Committee in the weeks and months ahead to improve the animal
    enterprise terrorism statute.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this
    very important topic and I look forward to your questions.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Scott appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Scott.
        We will, without objection, put the statement of Senator
    Leahy into the record immediately following my opening
    statement.
        Now, let me just ask both of you this question. Do you have
    the tools--you have indicated here you may not have all the
    tools, but let me just ask it in this way--do you have the
    tools under current law to combat illegal activities directed
    toward research institutions and companies engaged in or
    supporting medical innovation? If not, would you care to list
    for us what additional tools you would like this Committee to
    try and provide for you?
        Mr. Lewis. Senator, we have no problem addressing
    investigations that involve criminal activity such as arson and
    explosives, use of explosives. We rely on other statutes,
    frankly, than the animal enterprise terrorism statute to
    address those types of cases.
        In this particular arena, when we are dealing with a whole
    range of activity that does have economic impact--things that
    include implied or veiled threats, office visits, office
    invasion in the form of blockades, surveillance of employees,
    posting employee information on the Internet, vandalism, that
    kind of thing--these are not covered at present by the animal
    enterprise statute and are therefore outside the scope of what
    we would be able to charge and bring to the U.S. Attorney's
    office. It is those types of things that are aimed at companies
    such as Huntingdon Life Sciences or secondary companies that
    work with them that we would like to see brought into the
    existing statute.
        Chairman Hatch. As Mr. Scott has suggested here, would the
    addition of Title III wiretap authority to the Animal
    Enterprise Protection Act--that is Title 18 U.S.C. Section 43--
    would that be helpful to the FBI in investigating these
    particular matters?
        Mr. Lewis. There is no question that Title III authority
    would greatly assist us in these cases. Right now, we cannot
    apply it. It is not a predicate offense. If we could have that
    changed, the short answer to your question is it would be a
    powerful tool in helping us through these investigations.
        Chairman Hatch. Can you live without that tool and still
    get these investigations done?
        Mr. Scott. Well, I think the trigger on the wiretap
    mechanism and its availability to law enforcement is that all
    other reasonable means of investigation have been exhausted
    before we apply to a Federal district court judge for that
    authority. So by its very nature, the statute would be limited
    to those circumstances where we have used every other tool
    available to us and, by resort, we are having to go to this
    mechanism.
        Chairman Hatch. Have either of you seen coordination
    between extremist groups located within the United States and
    other extremist groups from other countries?
        Mr. Lewis. Sir, there is coordination to the extent that
    there is dialogue going back and forth, in addition to the flow
    of dollars back and forth between Great Britain and the United
    States. SHAC USA or Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty here in the
    United States grew out of the same organization that exists in
    Great Britain. We know that there is communication going back
    and forth. We know that there is travel of principals going
    back and forth and, as I said, the flow of dollars.
        If I may, on the last question that you asked, I will also
    tell you that we have learned through our investigations that
    there is a code of conduct within this movement that spells out
    no cooperation with law enforcement if you are caught. In fact,
    they have a name for it; they call it the no-compromise policy.
        The fact of the matter is most of the individuals that we
    confront in these investigations--when they are confronted,
    they simply don't cooperate. Getting back to your question on
    Title III authority, it would be extremely helpful, if we can't
    get cooperation from subjects, to be able to use Title III to
    tie us into other subjects.
        Chairman Hatch. Many of the acts committed by these
    extremists, it would seem to me, already violate State laws.
    Now, are these State laws adequate to combat and prosecute, if
    you will, these animal terrorists?
        Mr. Scott. Senator, I was a local prosecutor, to include
    elected district attorney, for a total of 14 years. So I am
    very sensitive to the issue of the federalization of what have
    historically been local or State crimes.
        I think what makes this particular area different is that
    these are not random, isolated acts of vandalism or graffiti or
    assaults or threats. This is all part of a coherent plan or
    strategy that oftentimes is a national strategy or conspiracy.
        What the Department would propose is that when this series
    of illegal acts that would otherwise oftentimes only constitute
    misdemeanor conduct is part of a larger plan or conspiracy that
    is directed to affect the economic opportunities of a
    legitimate business, then there is a Federal aspect to that.
        The other part of it that is significant is that as a local
    prosecutor in California and now as a United States Attorney,
    the investigative tool of the Federal grand jury is tremendous
    in relation to what is available to local prosecutors, at least
    in California. And the ability to call witnesses and question
    witnesses and suspects and material witnesses in front of the
    Federal grand jury and to subpoena documents--all those kinds
    of things are a tremendous tool that is not available to local
    prosecutors.
        The final point I would make is that if a local district
    attorney in a county in far northern California sees a series
    of what he or she would consider to be petty acts of vandalism,
    and a prosecutor in southern Oregon sees the same thing without
    knowing that the other is going, there isn't that connection to
    establish the wider plan. So they may not take the cases as
    seriously as they should be, whereas with the Federal ability
    to look at it globally, we have the ability to really make a
    determination of how significant the conduct is.
        Chairman Hatch. Let me ask you, what effect does the
    targeting of secondary companies not meeting the statutory
    definition of, quote, ``animal enterprise,'' unquote, under 18
    U.S.C. 43, have on the FBI's ability to investigate and obtain
    prosecution of animal rights extremists who commit criminal
    acts against those companies?
        Mr. Lewis. Sir, I believe I heard almost all of your
    question. There is a sustained campaign being waged here in
    this country by SHAC on what we call secondary or tertiary
    companies. In fact, as many as 100 companies since 2000 have
    stopped doing business with Huntingdon Life Sciences because of
    these attacks.
        If we cannot bring prosecution against individuals who are
    involved in a variety of lower-level criminal activity against
    these secondary companies, then we lose an opportunity to
    arrest subjects, hopefully interrogate subjects, bring subjects
    to the U.S. Attorney's office for further prosecution and
    hopefully elicit some sort of cooperation. That has long been
    one tool in our bag for all other types of investigations, the
    power of prosecution and what it does in terms of bringing
    cooperation on the part of some people.
        Chairman Hatch. Well, I appreciate your testimony here
    today. This is an important hearing because it is important for
    us to let the American people know that these groups are out
    there and that they are getting away with some very terrible
    acts and that we have got to do more to give the law strength
    to be able to apprehend them and go after them.
        I think both of you testifying here today is very
    important, so we appreciate you coming. Thanks so much.
        We will turn to our second panel: William Green, senior
    vice president and general counsel of Chiron Corporation;
    Jonathan Blum, senior vice president of government affairs at
    Yum! Brands; and Dr. Stuart Zola, the director of the Yerkes
    Primate Center at Emory University.
        Let's start with you, Mr. Green, first. Mr. Green, we will
    go to you, and them Mr. Blum and then Mr. Zola.

     STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GREEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
          COUNSEL, CHIRON CORPORATION, EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today on
    behalf of Chiron Corporation. I must also say, however, that it
    is not really a pleasure testifying before this Committee in a
    circumstance where both personally and institutionally we are
    in the cross-hairs of a violent and persistent campaign of
    intimidation and harassment against our employees and
    ourselves, for reasons that are only vaguely related to our
    current business.
        The interesting dynamic that is occurring in animal
    terrorism, exemplified by the SHAC attacks on tertiary targets,
    is that it is falling below the radar screen of existing
    regulation, and existing tools of law enforcement. The local,
    State and Federal level are essentially inadequate to deal with
    the perverse effects of this coercion.
        There are two issues that I would like to have you focus on
    as I testify today. The first is that this activity is
    increasingly targetting businesses that are not themselves
    animal enterprises, but are normal players in the chain of
    commerce that have very little incentive to resist the effect
    of intimidation on their employees. Therefore, their first act
    and their obvious act is to withdraw from relationships with
    the real target of the harassment.
        Second, this is truly a national and international activity
    carefully coordinated and orchestrated through the use of the
    Internet. The combination of these two factors put this
    activity beyond the scope of effective regulation by existing
    tools.
        Let me take a minute to talk about Chiron and the threat
    that we faced. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Chiron is
    biotechnology company. We are in the business of developing new
    treatments and preventions for disease. We are active in
    fighting cancer. We prevent influenza. We have products on the
    market for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis.
        We will continue to use animals because science requires
    testing of all these therapeutic and preventive products before
    they can be used commercially. Before you can engage in human
    testing, you must test these rationally in appropriate animal
    models. The law requires this, the science requires this.
        Our own animal testing program is carefully accredited and
    regulated, and we try to operate it in the best state-of-the-
    art means. But because of a historical connection that we have
    had with Huntingdon Life Sciences, we are a tertiary target for
    the harassment campaign that is now underway.
        That campaign has been underway against us for about 13
    months in the United States and about 2 1/2 years in the United
    Kingdom and the Netherlands. Our employees have been the target
    of violent and persistent campaigns by animal extremists. I
    would like to provide just a couple of highlights of that and
    see if I can call together the way these campaign are
    coordinated with four points.
        My written testimony contains a number of examples of
    campaigns and tactics used against Chiron, but I would like to
    have you focus on four. The first is home visits. Masked people
    arrive at the homes of low-level employees in the middle of the
    night with bull horns and screech alarms. In one case, in our
    company, they smeared animal feces on the doorsteps of
    employees. In another case, they left butyric acid on the front
    door. Butyric acid creates the strong aroma similar to that
    emitted by vomit.
        In my personal case, there have been four home visits, none
    of them really more than petty, prank-like vandalism. But when
    combined with the other activities of SHAC against us, they
    present a fairly pervasive and intimidating result for me and
    for my family.
        The most pronounced of these other activities, of course,
    is bombing. Two bombs went off on our campus on August 28,
    2003, at about two o'clock in the morning. These bombs were set
    to go off some minutes apart. The goal of setting off two bombs
    some minutes apart is fairly obviously. They were targetting
    the first responders who came to investigate the first bomb
    blast.
        About 30 days after the bombing of our site, a third bomb
    went off at the Shaklee Company, also in the Bay area of
    California. At about the same time as the Shaklee blast, the
    SHAC website in the United States published the following
    statement from what is called the Revolutionary Cells, and I
    quote, ``Hey, Sean Lance''--our chairman--``and the rest of the
    Chiron team, how are you sleeping? You never know when your
    house, your car even, might go boom. Who knows? That new car in
    the parking lot may be packed with explosives, or maybe it will
    be a shot in the dark.'' If this isn't intimidation by
    threatening death by use of the Internet, I don't know what is.
        Three weeks after this e-mail posting on the Internet
    threatening death to our chairman, Sean Lance, SHAC invaded the
    college campus where my freshman daughter is a student and
    leafletted the campus with pictures of her, urging other
    students to harass and intimidate here and the student
    organizations of which she is a member. She was 3,000 miles
    from her mother and 3,000 miles from me, and I must say this
    wasn't pleasant.
        If you consider all of these activities in totality, what
    we have is an international conspiracy to use new tools that
    are not effectively regulated by law enforcement. The ideal
    solution in my mind would be a comprehensive amendment of the
    Hobbs Act. If that is not possible, at a minimum, this year we
    need to have the Animal Terrorism Act amended to make it
    effective against the kind of low-level terrorism and global
    Internet coordination that is now intimidating companies
    throughout the United States, and for that matter Western
    Europe.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is the end of my prepared
    remarks. I am happy to respond to questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Green appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. We appreciate it and, like
    I say, we will put all the prepared remarks in the record as
    though fully given.
        Mr. Blum.

      STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BLUM, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC
               AFFAIRS, YUM! BRANDS, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

        Mr. Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
    you for having us here today to bring attention to this
    important matter. I am here to talk with you about a corporate
    campaign that has been waged against KFC, one of our companies,
    for the last 3 years.
        What I would like to do is outline how PETA, who has
    brought this corporate campaign against us, has crossed the
    line of free speech and First Amendment protection to what we
    consider to be invasion of privacy and harassment of our
    executives and their families, our neighbors and others in our
    community. In my view, PETA's campaign has been nothing short
    of what I would call corporate terrorism.
        As background, PETA has attempted to pressure our company
    into forcing our suppliers to make changes to their processing
    methods. We don't own any processing companies. Let's be clear.
    What PETA ultimately wants is a vegetarian or vegan world, no
    consumption of meat, poultry, pork, fish, no leather goods, no
    dairy products--not very likely in our society.
        But since we don't own any farms or any processing
    facilities, PETA has drawn their attention on KFC and tried to
    disrupt our supply chain and pressure us to force our suppliers
    to make the changes that PETA seeks. We view those changes as
    impractical, unnecessary, unproven and very costly. In fact,
    Mr. Chairman, if we were to implement those changes, the cost
    to our company would exceed $50 million. Our suppliers have
    told us they will not categorically implement the changes that
    PETA seeks.
        We have studied this matter thoroughly and we are very
    comfortable with the animal welfare guidelines that our
    suppliers are following. So when we resisted making the changes
    that PETA seeks, they escalated their campaign and moved from
    rhetoric and dialogue to harassment and threats. They have
    enlisted the help of a number of celebrities who are
    vegetarians. They have spread misinformation, come to our
    restaurants and picketed, boycotted, and come to our business
    meetings, and so forth.
        Mr. Chairman, we are perfectly fine with PETA exercising
    their First Amendment rights and acting within their legal
    rights, as I have just described. But they have stepped over
    the line and moved beyond protected free speech and have
    resorted to intimidation of our executives.
        Let me just be clear. This is not a warm and fuzzy animal
    protection group; this is not the ASPCA. PETA's Bruce
    Friedrich, the number two in the organization, has admitted
    under oath, in a court of law, that he told his supporters at a
    rally that all fast-food restaurants should be bombed or
    exploded and he would say alleluia to anyone who perpetrated
    these crimes. I have submitted for the record a transcript of
    Mr. Friedrich's remarks.
        Let me give you a few examples of what PETA has done to us
    and why several of us, myself included, have 24-a-day, 7-day-a-
    week police protection at our homes during frequent periods
    throughout the year.
        Last year, a leader of PETA in Germany threw actor's blood
    and feathers on our Chairman and CEO as a means to embarrass
    him at a public event, and this was publicized through the news
    media around the world. The perpetrator of that was prosecuted
    in Germany.
        PETA has published on their website home addresses of a
    number of our executives, and they have encouraged their
    700,000 members to regularly and frequently send us letters to
    our homes which we receive from all around the world, people
    telling us to stop killing chickens.
        PETA has hired a photographer to take clandestine and
    secret photographs of us with long-distance lenses for the sole
    purpose of putting our faces on billboards across America and
    in advertisements saying that we are chicken killers. PETA has
    gone door to door in our neighbors harassing our neighbors and
    our families, telling them that we are chicken killers and
    inhumane, trying to make us uncomfortable in our communities.
    They have also threatened to bring a jumbo television screen to
    the president of KFC's home to showcase a videotape of chickens
    being slaughtered to all the children in the neighborhood.
        On Halloween, they came to our neighborhood dressed as
    chickens and handed out trick-or-treats to kids. But instead of
    candy, Mr. Chairman, they handed out videotapes of chickens
    being slaughtered to the children so they could bring those
    home and play them for their parents.
        PETA sent me an e-mail similar to the one that they sent to
    Chiron, or an organization sent to Chiron, apparently, and told
    me I shouldn't sleep easy at night. PETA has been making
    harassing phone calls to our board of directors and sending
    them harassing letters. They found our CEO's mother in the
    Midwest and sent her a letter and called her; the same thing
    with the president of KFC's parents and the CEO's sister.
        They have gone to the church where a number of our
    employees attend and have disrupted services and marched in
    front with banners and slogans, and so forth. They have also
    enlisted a celebrity to come and say to me that they are going
    to bring 5,000 people to my front door and harass us through
    intimidation. They were arrested for trespassing on our
    property.
        I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but for the sake of
    time let me just say that any one of these individual actions
    probably is not enough to raise concern. But when you string
    them all together over a 3-year period, and dozens and dozens
    more, I hope you would agree that this campaign of harassment
    and intimidation gives rise to modifying the criminal code. We
    hope that you can do something about this by making it a
    criminal act for any animal rights activist to personally
    harass or intimidate an executive or cause a business
    disruption in the way PETA has done to us.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would also urge Congress to
    consider eliminating PETA's tax-free status, as they benefit
    from tax laws designed to help not-for-profit organizations,
    and we don't think that is appropriate.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Blum appears as a submission
    for the record.]
        Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Blum.
        Mr. Zola.

    STATEMENT OF STUART M. ZOLA, DIRECTOR, YERKES NATIONAL PRIMATE
      RESEARCH LABORATORY, EMORY UNIVERSITY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, ON
       BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

        Mr. Zola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    allowing me to testify today and for conducting this hearing on
    the threat posed by animal rights extremists.
        I am the director of the Yerkes National Primate Research
    Center, one of eight NIH-sponsored research facilities in this
    country. We are located in Emory University, in Atlanta,
    Georgia, where I am also a professor of psychiatry and
    behavioral sciences and a research career scientist with the
    Veterans Administration.
        I am here today testifying on behalf of the National
    Association for Biomedical Research, the NABR. With 300
    institutional members, the NABR is the only national non-profit
    organization dedicated solely to advocating sound public policy
    that recognizes the vital role of humane animal use in
    biomedical research, in higher education and in product safety
    testing.
        In addition to my role as director at Yerkes, I am also a
    neuroscientist and my work involves studying the brain and
    memory and how memory works, what parts of the brain are
    important for memory, what happens when things go wrong, and
    hopefully how we may be able to fix things when they do go
    wrong.
        Much of what we have learned thus far about how the human
    brain works in terms of memory has really come from research
    with animals. Because we have been able to develop animal
    models for a number of different kinds of human diseases, we
    can study these diseases in the laboratory in a very systematic
    way, in ways that we cannot do with humans.
        For example, in terms of my own field, we have developed
    animal models now that have abnormal deposits of protein. This
    is an abnormal protein that occurs in Alzheimer's disease and
    is indeed the hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. Because we have
    these animal models available to us now, there is a lot of
    promise in being able to understand and treat Alzheimer's
    disease in ways that we haven't had available to us before.
        Indeed, there are a number of individuals at Yerkes and at
    Emory University and at other institutions around the country
    who are working on the possibility of an Alzheimer's vaccine;
    that is, we now have the possibility of being able to reverse
    the deposits of these plaques, this protein, and in some cases
    we hope to be able to prevent that from even occurring. So
    animal research for my field of memory and for many other
    fields of medicine really has brought us to new dimensions and
    new areas of possibility.
        Now, I want you to erase what I have just said. Don't think
    about the fact that we have treatments. Think about having no
    treatments and having no cures and having little hope, and that
    is the outcome if animal extremists have their way.
        Because of the research I do, because I use monkeys to
    study aspects of memory, I have been a target of animal rights
    activists for many years. When I was at the University of
    California, before I came to Emory, I was the university's
    spokesperson for the use of animals in research and explaining
    to the general public why it was important to do that.
        Animal extremists labeled me as Vivisector of the Year for
    many years running, and every year they would burn a life-like
    model of me dressed in a lab coat at demonstrations. This was
    more than a veiled threat to me. Mail came to my home with
    pictures of me and my family, with bull's eye targets
    superimposed on them, so that I would know that they knew about
    my personal life and where I lived. Harassing phone calls were
    just the normal order of the day.
        When I moved to Emory University a couple of years ago, the
    neighborhood where I had just bought a home was flooded with
    propaganda from animal rights activists warning my neighbors
    that a torturer was coming to live in their neighborhood. For
    the first year of our residency there, we received dozens and
    dozens of unauthorized magazine subscriptions and book club
    memberships and gifts and other kinds of things that were sent
    to us as harassment in my name by the animal rights activists.
    Not only that, but they did this to my colleagues in my name,
    as well, and sent them gift subscriptions from me.
        For the concern of safety for me, Emory University
    installed and continues to pay for and support an alarm system
    in my home. The university, in collaboration with the
    university police and our local community police, keeps a close
    watch on my home and neighborhood at all times.
        Others of my colleagues have faced harassment as well,
    including having pictures of their children appear on animal
    extremist Web pages, with the suggestion that these children
    ought to be treated no differently than animals in research.
    The threats are focused in other ways as well, what is referred
    to as third-party threats, and we have heard a lot of this
    already this morning.
        In terms of our own experience, a contractor who was doing
    work for Yerkes was recently the target of what is referred to
    as a denial of service. That is an action by the animal
    extremists who use sophisticated computer-driven telephone
    dialing programs to flood the lines of this business and
    effectively block access to the company's legitimate customers.
        If this continues, the animal extremists will have won and
    the loser will be humanity. We can't allow this to happen.
    Animal extremists claim that it is unethical to do animal
    research, but everything that we know and everything that we
    still have to learn in terms of biomedical research makes it
    just the opposite. It is unethical to not do animal research.
        Your grandchildren and my grandchildren have the promise of
    growing up with much less disease in this world now, and our
    own children even today have the promise of being able to face
    old age gracefully and with a lot more dignity as these new
    developments come about. Animal research plays a large part in
    those promises and being able to fulfill those promises.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
    testify and for making these points about the importance of
    holding at bey where animal activists have come to and not
    allowing them to progress. I am happy to answer any questions
    that you have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Zola appears as a submission
    for the record.]
        Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Zola.
        Mr. Green, your statement briefly touches on similar
    activities done in the UK, or the United Kingdom. Can you
    provide some further insight to the Committee with regard to
    the UK's governmental response to these types of activities?
        Mr. Green. We have had employees harassed in the UK and in
    the Netherlands for two-and-a-half years. The UK government has
    been much more effective than local or Federal Government
    agencies in the United States in putting together a program
    that permits private companies to obtain judicial protection
    for their employees.
        Part of that is an outgrowth of the British government's
    concern about the erosion of structural and infrastructural
    support for Huntingdon that caused the government to be more
    supportive of protective mechanisms. The same sorts of
    harassing activities that have occurred in the United States
    have occurred in Europe, both at our employees' homes and at
    our office sites.
        Chairman Hatch. Some of the episodes you discuss appear to
    be violations of State laws, and if that is so, why are they
    not adequate in taking care of the problems and why do you need
    Federal laws to resolve this?
        Mr. Green. A combination of two factors, Senator. The first
    is that most of these activities fall below the radar screen of
    effective enforcement of local law. Local law enforcement,
    using tools such as disturbance of the peace or vandalism and
    the like, are not going to be interested in pursuing broader
    solutions.
        For example, the four home visits that occurred in my
    hometown were the only four events that happened in 13 months
    in the city in which I live. While the city police and the city
    government is more than interested in protecting its citizens,
    four small, prank-like matters in isolation is not going to
    present a case that is going to be prosecutable by local
    authorities.
        However, when you aggregate this activity, and particularly
    you aggregate it with the orchestration and coordination
    globally of an Internet-driven and Internet-empowered
    communication mechanism, you have a tool that is beyond the
    scope of local or State law enforcement.
        Chairman Hatch. So you are in agreement with the prior
    panel that we need to provide law enforcement with greater
    tools in order to apprehend and prosecute these animal
    extremists who threaten, intimidate and harass your employees
    as well as other employees throughout the country?
        Mr. Green. I am, Senator Hatch, yes.
        Chairman Hatch. Now, you believe new legislation is needed
    to address the issues raised by your testimony. Do you believe
    that Congress can go further in this area of law without
    imposing restrictions on the First Amendment?
        Mr. Green. Senator, I don't believe that any of the
    activities that I have outlined today reflect protected speech.
    I am a personal believer in upholding First Amendment
    protections, and I am sure the judicial system would be able to
    do that.
        What the current activity by the animal extremists does is
    create a fabric of low-level criminal behavior that falls below
    the enforcement interest and possibly the jurisdictional
    interest of the applicable existing law enforcement regimes,
    local, State and Federal.
        In my mind, we need to have an overarching regulatory
    regime by amending the criminal code at the Federal level that
    permits both the aggregating of the damages done by these low-
    level activities and an effective mechanism for dealing with
    the coordination device that occurs through the use of the
    Internet to schedule and orchestrate these activities
    simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions.
        Our experience in the United States, Mr. Senator, has been
    simultaneous attacks in California, Washington, New Jersey,
    coordinated with the activities in the United Kingdom and the
    Netherlands. So it is essentially a global problem.
        Chairman Hatch. Mr. Blum, let me turn to you. We have heard
    from other witnesses who work in fields that are not
    particularly household names, but your company almost everybody
    knows. People know names such as KFC, Taco Bell and others.
    These are household words.
        You state in your testimony that extremists have threatened
    you, harassed others and distributed videotapes of chickens
    being slaughtered to children on Halloween. In your view, is
    current Federal and State law inadequate to provide you and
    those similarly situated with protection, and does it provide
    any punishment for those who carry out these outrageous acts?
        Mr. Blum. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would concur with Mr. Green
    and say that any one of these individual incidents could be
    considered a prank, and when you string them together, in the
    aggregate, that is where you have what we would consider
    corporate terrorism.
        Let me give you an example. Mr. Friedrich, who trespassed
    on our property on Christmas Eve to disrupt our holiday, was
    cited for arrest. He was brought to criminal prosecution and
    last week a jury convicted him. The fine, Mr. Chairman, was a
    $25 fine. Quite frankly, that is not going to be a deterrent to
    the PETA organization to prevent them from conducting the type
    of activity that they do.
        Besides that, there are 699,999 other members of the PETA
    organization who can continue on with this campaign of
    corporate terrorism. So I would like to see the criminal code
    expanded to include harassment, intimidation, invasion of
    privacy, stepping over the line of free speech. We believe in
    free speech, but when they have stepped over it, that is where
    we would like to see some protection.
        Chairman Hatch. Give us a little understanding of how these
    acts that you describe have affected your company. Have they
    affected the bottom line? Have they affected your ability to do
    business? Have they affected your ability to franchise and your
    ability to operate?
        Mr. Blum. First, they have been a disruption to our
    executives' time. But above and beyond that, they are trying to
    coerce us to force our suppliers to make changes which would
    not be in our shareholders' best interest. If we have to incur
    a $50 million charge by modifying the processing facilities,
    that is just simply not in our shareholders' best interest.
        Chairman Hatch. Even if you did modify them, they would
    still be critical, wouldn't they?
        Mr. Blum. They would. They would just raise the bar once
    again.
        Chairman Hatch. So in other words, you could never really
    satisfy them as long as you are selling dead chickens? I could
    say that in a little more delicate way.
        Mr. Blum. Well, that is what we do for a living and we are
    proud of being the world leader in fried chicken. They want a
    vegetarian world. We sell fried chicken. We will never see eye
    to eye. We respect that, and so long as they stay within the
    boundaries of the law and stay within their First Amendment
    rights, we are fine with that. When they step over the line,
    that is when we would like some protection.
        Chairman Hatch. Mr. Zola, I have been interested in your
    testimony because I am a great believer in medical research,
    and I also am a great believer that you have to do humane
    animal testing in order to accomplish this research. As
    everybody knows, a year or so ago I came out for embryonic stem
    cell research, which is also, many think, the future of medical
    research in this country and throughout the world.
        Are you aware of extremist targeting companies or other
    organizations that provide support services to Emory University
    that have been targeted because of their association with your
    facility, and if so, what kind of tactics were used?
        Mr. Zola. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for
    your support. I know you are a champion of medical research and
    of the kind of work that is involved there.
        Chairman Hatch. Thank you.
        Mr. Zola. The answer is, yes, we have. As I alluded to in
    my testimony, for example, we have contractors who are
    associated with the Yerkes Primate Research Center be the
    victims of one of these attacks.
        Now, just in line with my colleagues and the FBI testimony
    earlier, we could see this attack coming. We knew it was
    happening because it was broadcast on the Internet by the
    animal rights extremist Web pages. They even set up a time for
    when the supporters could download the piece of software they
    needed to generate this denial of service through their own
    computers. So we knew and could follow it.
        We were linked to the FBI in this, as well, but there was
    nothing they could do in this case because they don't have the
    possibilities of being able to interfere at that point in time
    because the rules and regulations aren't in place for being
    able to do that. So that is in many ways the kind of tragedy of
    this. We actually can see it unfolding and we know it is going
    to happen, and yet we can't do anything to counteract it.
        So we do have several examples of this, and in the
    testimony submitted from NABR several other examples are
    indicated as well. But in terms of Emory, and Yerkes in
    particular, many of the companies that have been associated
    with us have been the victims of this. Some of those companies
    then decide not to continue their relationship with us, and so
    that creates difficulties for us. We have to then go and find
    other contractors to be able to complete the work.
        There is a ripple that goes on and the ripple, Mr.
    Chairman, is even more important in the academic community
    itself; that is, students and post-doctoral fellows and other
    individuals, good scientists who would otherwise be doing
    research involving animals and important medical research, are
    becoming demoralized and they decide to move on to other areas
    that are less troublesome, less problematic.
        That really is the goal for the animal activists. The goal
    is not animal welfare. The goal is the abolition of the use of
    animals in research. There is no dividing line there. That is
    the goal, and that is the slow and incremental impact that they
    are having unless we intervene and do something.
        Chairman Hatch. Well, you have indicated in many ways that
    research is affected by these types of activities. Could you
    give us some other illustrations as to how research is
    affected? I am talking about medical and health care research,
    in particular, research for the benefit of mankind.
        Mr. Zola. Yes.
        Chairman Hatch. I notice that Mr. Green's organization, for
    instance, is trying to stamp out polio throughout the world and
    have been doing an excellent job. They are also working on some
    other very life-saving remedies and therapies and
    pharmaceuticals, if you will, that could help mankind.
        Tell us a little bit more about how you think this affects
    medical research.
        Mr. Zola. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. I
    would say there are at least two ways in which the animal
    extremists have had their impact. One is that they drain
    resources that would otherwise be directed toward life-saving
    biomedical research and instead are redirected toward
    development of regulations and a lot of administrative aspects
    that are put in place by legislation that is intended to be
    directed toward the welfare of animals, but which really does
    nothing more to enhance the welfare of animals.
        As you may know, there are in some cases more regulations
    associated with the use of animals in research than there are
    with the use of human subjects in research. The physical
    requirements and psychological requirements for housing animals
    and for maintaining animals is extraordinary in terms of its
    regulations. So the intent was to redirect as much of the
    resources both in terms of time and money as can be done by
    animal activists, and they have been very successful at that.
        The second is what I alluded to earlier, and that is the
    human resources. Those human resources are coming in some cases
    to conclusion that this is just not the field that they want to
    be in. So individuals who are quite capable and remarkable
    researchers are choosing a course of research that doesn't
    involve animals, just because it is easier and safer not to do
    that. People are feeling threatened, people are feeling
    demoralized. Graduate students and post-doctoral fellows are
    choosing a different direction in their careers.
        So much of the kinds of discovery that we know is critical
    and based around animal research is not going to get done in
    the timely way that it would otherwise. In my view, that
    translates simply to lives lost. The outcome of this really is
    the loss of lives. It means that the treatment or the cure or
    the intervention that would be here in 3 months is not going to
    be here in 3 months, and may never be here because of this
    drain of resources in terms of time and energy.
        Chairman Hatch. Well, you have brought that future
    biomedical scientists may diminish in significant numbers if
    they have to go through this kind of harassment.
        Mr. Zola. And it is ironic, if I might just add, Mr.
    Chairman, because we are on the verge now of a tremendous
    revolution in biomedical research with the aspect of genomics
    and stem cell research which is going to require the use of
    animals in a very strong and powerful way.
        Chairman Hatch. How widespread are these types of tactics
    in targeting others within the research community?
        Mr. Zola. It is quite pervasive. There is no colleague that
    I know of who hasn't had some impact in some way from the
    animal rights community either by being attacked directly or by
    having students or others affected.
        Chairman Hatch. Or even members of the family.
        Mr. Zola. And certainly members of the family, as we said.
    And you also made another point--I think it was you who made
    it--that they are not nearly as concerned about the use of
    human subjects as they are animal subjects. I mean, that seems
    kind of inconsistent.
        Mr. Zola. Sir, the goal, as I say, is not animal welfare;
    it is not human welfare. It is a different political goal in
    its own right of the abolition of the use of animals in
    research.
        Chairman Hatch. Well, I know very wealthy people who love
    animals and have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to
    PETA, for instance, because they believe that they are really
    trying to protect animals. Yet, without animal research, we
    would soon fall behind a lot of other countries and we would
    fall behind in these life-saving treatment therapies that are
    essential for mankind.
        Mr. Zola. I believe you are right. If I may make one last
    point, the research that we do helps not just humans; it helps
    animals. When you take your animal to the veterinarian, that
    treatment that the veterinarian has come out of animal
    research, so that animal research really is two-pronged, in a
    sense. It helps humans, but it also is important for animals
    themselves. So to be opposed to it doesn't make sense.
        Chairman Hatch. Well, I can see people who want to be
    vegetarians and don't want to eat Kentucky Fried, or now I
    understand roasted chicken.
        Mr. Blum. Right.
        Chairman Hatch. When that did that start, the middle of
    this month?
        Mr. Blum. Very good. You have been watching TV.
        Chairman Hatch. I have been wondering why you haven't had
    roasted chicken for some of us who can't eat fried chicken
    anymore.
        Mr. Blum. Well, come on in and try it.
        Chairman Hatch. I will.
        Mr. Blum. I will get you some chicken checks.
        Chairman Hatch. Okay, that will be great.
        Well, let me just say this. This is a serious hearing
    because there are few things as important for the welfare of
    society as scientific research for the benefit of mankind, and
    it can't be done without animal research, in my opinion. Some
    of it can, but some of the most significant parts cannot be
    done. Like I say, it is pathetic that people don't realize that
    and are not nearly as concerned about human research. I mean,
    it saves us the problem of using human subjects to try and find
    out what works and what doesn't work.
        So I just think that all three of your testimonies have
    been very helpful. There is no excuse for anybody intimidating
    children, intimidating research scientists and intimidating
    people in their homes. Your home should not be invaded. They
    should be protected, and I don't know of many societies where
    you won't have some sense of peace and tranquility in your own
    home.
        So I am very concerned about what I am hearing here today
    and we will have to see what we can do to resolve some of these
    problems. I am also concerned with the criminal activities that
    are going on, and if the Federal Government doesn't have the
    laws to resolve these problems, then we are going to have to
    try and find ways of giving them that help and that aid and
    those, to use your term, tools to be able to help them to be
    able to resolve these problems.
        Well, your testimony has been very important today and we
    will certainly take it completely under consideration.
        With that, the Center for Consumer Freedom has written a
    letter directed to me from Richard Berman, who is the executive
    director. Here is what he said: ``Dear Senator Hatch, thank you
    for holding a public hearing to investigate the disturbing
    trend of animal rights activists choosing criminal violence
    over peaceful protest. To add appropriate context to today's
    testimony, I would like to share some unusual findings that the
    Center for Consumer Freedom is in the process of making public.
    They highlight the extent to which supposedly `mainstream'
    animal rights charities, many of which enjoy Federal tax-exempt
    status, have an undeniable hand in encouraging and funding
    violent activity.''
        This backs up what you are saying.
        ``People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, has
    donated over $150,000 to criminal activists, including the
    terrorist Earth Liberation Front''--that is ELF that has been
    mentioned here--``and individuals jailed for arson, burglary
    and attempted murder. When asked by eight different media
    outlets to explain the purpose of a $1,500 gift to ELF, PETA
    officers and spokespersons gave eight different and
    contradictory answers. Since 2000, rank-and-file PETA activists
    have been arrested over 80 times for crimes committed during
    PETA protests. Charges include felony obstruction of government
    property, criminal mischief, assaulting a cabinet official,
    felony vandalism, performing obscene acts in public,
    destruction of Federal property and burglary. Last week, PETA
    vegetarian campaign director Bruce Friedrich was convicted of
    criminal trespass in Kentucky. Friedrich has previously
    publicly advocated `blowing stuff up and smashing windows' in
    order to win `animal liberation.' As recently as last year,
    PETA's payroll included convicted Animal Liberation Front felon
    Gary Yourofsky, whom the group paid to lecture public school
    students about strict vegetarianism and animal rights. And
    PETA's websites, several of which target children, openly
    advocate vandalism and other illegal activity. Despite all of
    this, PETA maintains its 501(c)(3) Federal tax exemption. While
    the Humane Society of the United States, HSUS, is generally
    less confrontational than PETA, it has its own connection to
    organized violence. Until last year, when the Center for
    Consumer Freedom brought it to light, the HSUS was quietly
    funding the operation of an Internet service which distributed
    the Animal Liberation Front's official communiques claiming
    responsibility for criminal activities. HSUS and its $65
    million annual income are completely tax-exempt. The case of
    Daniel Andreas San Diego is a chilling story of animal rights
    terror involving two ten-pound shrapnel bombs detonated in 2003
    using the same materials found at the Oklahoma City blast site.
    The FBI's investigation uncovered substantial connections
    between this Federal fugitive and two above-ground groups--
    California-based In Defense of Animals, IDA, and a violent
    group called SHAC. IDA is a tax-exempt charity. SHAC is in the
    process of applying for that status. In addition to its
    undeniable connection to the Chiron and Shaklee bombings, SHAC
    has been responsible for car bombings, death threats, physical
    assaults and countless other acts of intimidation. Substantial
    connections exist between PETA and SHAC, largely flowing
    through the inventively-named Physicians Committee for
    Responsible Medicine, or PCRM. PETA's quasi-medical front
    group, PCRM, has been publicly censured by the American Medical
    Association for its outrageous misrepresentations of medical
    science. To date, PETA has passed over $1.3 million to PCRM,
    all of it tax-exempt. PCRM president Dr. Neal Barnard is
    president of the PETA Foundation, the vehicle used to move much
    of this money. Working with the president of SHAC, Bernard has
    cosigned letters targeting biomedical research firms in the
    U.S. and abroad. Last year, at the `Animal Rights 2003'
    national conference, official PCRM spokesman Jerry Vlasak
    publicly advocated the murder of doctors who use animals in
    their research, saying `I don't think you would have to kill,
    assassinate too many. I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human
    lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 3 million non-human
    lives.' Vlasak reinforced this idea in April, telling a
    national cable network audience that violence is `a morally
    justifiable solution' for activists. A disturbing current of
    violence runs beneath the surface of `mainstream' animal rights
    groups in the United States. And some of these tax-exempt
    charities are provided `material support or resources' to
    groups and individuals whose activities fit the U.S. Criminal
    Code's definition of `domestic terrorism.'''
        That is a startling letter and if the facts in this letter
    are true, then there will have to be some action taken against
    these people who are committing these criminal activities. So I
    am going to caution our law enforcement people to check these
    all out. If they are true, there is no excuse for these people
    or these organizations having tax-free status in this country,
    because they certainly would not qualify under anybody's
    definition of tax-free 501(c)(3) organizations.
        So this hearing is a very important one. We will continue
    to follow up and, of course, we would appreciate any additional
    information anybody can send. We also would appreciate
    arguments on the other side, although I don't want to be
    inundated with propaganda. We would want articles of
    significance and honesty that would help us to understand this
    better.
        I appreciate the courage of you people and the testimony
    you have brought to us here today. I think what you have gone
    through is just absolutely wrong and we will see what we can do
    about it.
        With that, we will adjourn until further notice.
        [Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Questions and answers and submissions for the record
    follow.]
        [Additional material is being retained in the Committee
    files.]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.087

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.088

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.089

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.090

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.102

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.103

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.104

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.105

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.106

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.107

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.108

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.109

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.110

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.111

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.112

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.113

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.114

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.115

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.116

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.117

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.119

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.120

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.121

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.122

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.123

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.124

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.125

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.126

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.127

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.128

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.129

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.130

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.131

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.132

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.133

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.134

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.135

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.136

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.137

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.138

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.139

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.140

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.141

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.142

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.143

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.144

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.145

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.146

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.147

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.148

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.149

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.150

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.151

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.153

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.154

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.155

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.156

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.157

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8179.158