[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