    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    NATIVE AMERICAN METHAMPHETAMINE ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT OF 2007,
       THE ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007, AND THE
     PREVENTING HARASSMENT THROUGH OUTBOUND NUMBER ENFORCEMENT (PHONE) ACT
                                    OF 2007

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                             AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                        H.R. 545, H.R. 137 and H.R. 740

                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 6, 2007

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 110-5

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                     ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2007
    33-102 PDF

    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
    HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         LAMAR SMITH, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    JERROLD NADLER, New York                 Wisconsin
    ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia            HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    MAXINE WATERS, California            DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      CHRIS CANNON, Utah
    WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   RIC KELLER, Florida
    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               DARRELL ISSA, California
    LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California         MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                STEVE KING, Iowa
    LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois          TOM FEENEY, Florida
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    ADAM B. SCHIFF, California           JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
    DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
    [Vacant]

                  Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director-Chief Counsel
                     Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
                                     ------

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                      ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

    MAXINE WATERS, California            J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                Wisconsin
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
    [Vacant]

                          Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel

                        Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                FEBRUARY 6, 2007

                                  TEXT OF BILL

                                                                       Page
    H.R. 545, the ``Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and
      Treatment Act of 2007''........................................     2
    H.R. 137, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of
      2007''.........................................................     6
    H.R. 740, the ``Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number
      Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007''..............................    11

                               OPENING STATEMENT

    The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
      Terrorism, and Homeland Security...............................     1
    The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................    17

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Pennsylvania
      Oral Testimony.................................................    18
      Prepared Statement.............................................    20
    The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Mexico
      Oral Testimony.................................................    21
      Prepared Statement.............................................    23
    Mr. Barry Sabin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States
      Department of Justice
      Oral Testimony.................................................    27
      Prepared Statement.............................................    29
    Mr. Ben Shelly, Vice President, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ
      Oral Testimony.................................................    40
      Prepared Statement.............................................    41
    Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, Humane Society of the
      United States, Washington, DC
      Oral Testimony.................................................    45
      Prepared Statement.............................................    47
    Mr. Jerry Leber, President, United Gamefowl Breeders Association,
      Albany, OH
      Oral Testimony.................................................    55
      Prepared Statement.............................................    58

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Prepared Statement of the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
      Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
      Security.......................................................   105
    Prepared Statement of Phil Kiko, Esquire, Senior Adviser, Office
      of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr....................   107

    NATIVE AMERICAN METHAMPHETAMINE ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT OF 2007,
       THE ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007, AND THE
     PREVENTING HARASSMENT THROUGH OUTBOUND NUMBER ENFORCEMENT (PHONE) ACT
                                    OF 2007

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2007

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
                                  and Homeland Security
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bobby
    Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Scott. The Committee will come to order. Today's
    hearing will now come to order.
        I am pleased to welcome you to this first hearing of the
    Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security in the
    110th Congress.
        I am also pleased to have been elected by my colleagues to
    Chair the Subcommittee during this Congress. And I want to say
    to Ranking Member Forbes and other Members who are on both
    sides of the aisle that I look forward to working with each and
    every one of you in conducting the important work of this
    Subcommittee.
        Today we will be considering H.R. 740, the ``Preventing
    Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of
    2007;'' H.R. 545, the ``Native American Methamphetamine
    Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007;'' and H.R. 137, the
    ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.''
        [The bill, H.R. 545, the ``Native American Methamphetamine
    Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007'' follows:]

        [The bill, H.R. 137, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition
    Enforcement Act of 2007'' follows:]

        [The bill, H.R. 740, the ``Preventing Harassment through
    Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007'' follows:]

        Mr. Scott. All three bills have strong bipartisan support.
    All three bills will be marked up in this Subcommittee today
    immediately following the hearing.
        We considered an earlier version of the PHONE Act in the
    109th Congress and will be hearing from the author of that
    bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, in just a
    moment. He is also a co-sponsor of this year's bill.
        H.R. 740 is aimed at the practice called ``spoofing.''
    Spoofing occurs when a caller uses a fake caller I.D. to hide
    the caller's identity in order to commit fraud or another
    abusive act.
        However, not all use of fake caller I.D. information is
    considered spoofing. When you receive a call from the United
    States House of Representatives, on an outside line, the number
    that appears on the outside line will have a different number
    than the one you are calling from. You will have basically a
    fake number. This kind of non-malicious fake I.D. use is used
    by some businesses as well, and it is exempted from the bill.
        Spoofing also occurs when a caller knowingly uses a caller
    I.D. of another person without permission. One of our witnesses
    at the hearing in our predecessor bill last Congress was Phil
    Kiko, the Judiciary Committee's chief counsel at the time, who
    had been the victim of such caller I.D. spoofing.
        While he had not suffered any theft of any money or
    tangible property at the time and was not directly harassed by
    the person who used his caller I.D., Phil and his family
    members were understandably irritated by numerous calls from
    people who were calling him back as a result of his caller I.D.
    being left on their caller I.D. systems.
        The bill that we were considering last Congress did not
    cover that situation, and that bill also made even non-abusive
    fake I.D. use illegal. That bill also did not make the
    distinction in penalties for spoofing that does not involve
    fraud or commercial gain.
        Further, comments from the Department of Justice were not
    available when last year's bill was being developed. We have
    since had a chance to consider DOJ's input and have constructed
    a bill that makes fraudulent commercial use of caller I.D.
    information a felony, makes abusive use of another person's
    caller I.D. information without fraud or commercial motives a
    misdemeanor, and exempts the use of non-abusive fake I.D.
    information.
        H.R. 545, the ``Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement
    and Treatment Act of 2007'' corrects an oversight in the Combat
    Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which we passed in the
    last counsel as part of the USA PATRIOT Act.
        Included in the combat meth act were provisions that
    authorized funding for three important grant programs within
    the Department of Justice. Although Native American tribes were
    included as an eligible grant recipient under one of the
    programs, they were unintentionally left out of two other
    programs, and this bill will correct that oversight.
        Finally, we will be considering H.R. 137, the ``Animal
    Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.'' H.R. 137
    addresses the growing program of staged animal fighting in this
    country. It increases the penalties under current Federal law
    for transporting animals in interstate commerce for the purpose
    of fighting and for the interstate and foreign commence in
    knives and gaffs designed to be used in cock fighting.
        Specifically, H.R. 137 makes violations of the law a felony
    punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Currently, these
    offenses are limited to misdemeanor treatment with the
    possibility of a fine and up to 1 year of imprisonment. Most
    States have made all staged animal fighting illegal.
        Just two States allow cock fighting. Virginia,
    unfortunately, is one of them, although it prohibits wagering
    on such fights. However, the Virginia Senate just recently
    passed a bill in the current legislative session that would
    also make cock fighting illegal.
        H.R. 137 currently has close to 300 co-sponsors.
        I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on these
    important bills and to considering the legislation and markup
    following the hearing.
        It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of
    the Subcommittee, my friend and neighbor, the Honorable Randy
    Forbes, who represents Virginia's 4th Congressional District.
        Representative Forbes?
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me, first of
    all, compliment the members of your caucus for selecting you as
    the Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee. I look forward to
    working with you, as we have done together on so many issues
    back at home in Virginia, and to find some bipartisan support
    for some of these important crime measures.
        I also want to say today that, because we know there are
    some votes that are going to be coming up pretty soon and we
    have got a huge panel of witnesses, I would like to simply
    insert in the record my opening remarks.
        But there is one point I would like to raise. As you know,
    today we will be marking up three bills immediately following
    the legislative hearing. And in the previous Congress, the
    Crime Subcommittee eventually changed its practice to hold
    markups on a separate day from legislative hearings on the same
    measure.
        And that makes good sense, since the hearing is to review
    the legislation and take testimony on possible changes or
    improvements. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that you
    intend to continue the policy of same-day markups, and that
    such scheduling will be limited to situations where you and I
    can agree to such a schedule or where there is an emergency
    requiring such scheduling.
        I want to thank you for working with us on this issue, and
    I appreciate, as always, your cooperation in confirming this
    arrangement.
        Mr. Scott. If the gentleman would yield, that is the
    intent. These bills have had hearings in the previous Congress
    and did not appear to need an additional hearing. I insisted
    that we have a hearing to maintain regular order, and it is my
    intent to have them on separate days so that we can get the
    full value of the hearing.
        And if there had been any objection on this process today,
    we would have had a separate day.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. If there are no other opening statements, we
    have a distinguished panel of witnesses here before us to help
    us consider the important issues that are currently before us.
        Our first witness, the Honorable Tim Murphy, has
    represented Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District since
    2003. He currently sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee
    and also serves as co-chair of both the Congressional Mental
    Health Caucus and the 21st Century Health Care Caucus.
    Representative Murphy has a B.A. from Wheeling Jesuit
    University, a master's degree from Cleveland State University,
    and a doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh.
        Our next witness is the Honorable Tom Udall, a Member of
    the United States House of Representatives from New Mexico's
    3rd Congressional District since 1995. He serves on the
    Resources, Small Business and Veterans Affairs Committees. He
    is also vice chairman of the House Native American Caucus. He
    received a B.A. from Prescott College in 1970, a bachelor of
    laws from Cambridge in 1975, and a J.D. from the University of
    New Mexico Law School in 1977.
        Congressman Murphy will be discussing H.R. 740, the PHONE
    Act. Congressman Udall will be discussing H.R. 545, the
    ``Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act
    of 2007.''
        And we will hear from them first and ask them questions.
    They can remain if they want or leave if they want, but we
    would like to have them make their statements at this time.
        Congressman Murphy?

      TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you
    again. It was a pleasure working with you when together we
    dealt with the previous version of the PHONE Act, H.R. 5304.
    And I must say, as I re-read your work, I think you have taken
    a good bill and made it a lot better on something we
    desperately need to have passed here.
        Identity theft, as you know, is an increasingly critical
    problem for consumers. The FTC has said that some 10 million
    individuals are victims of identity theft and that consumer
    complaints come from 255,000 individuals across the States.
        Congress has repeatedly tried to prevent identity theft,
    most recently with the passage of H.R. 5304 in the final days
    of the 109th Congress. Unfortunately, with new technology comes
    new risks and new risks and new opportunities for criminals to
    skirt the law.
        And one of these technologies is call spoofing, or caller
    I.D. fraud, where one masks their identity by altering their
    outbound caller I.D. number in order to mislead the call
    recipient. Some may describe call spoofing as a way to maintain
    caller privacy. I believe it is nothing less than fraud.
        Stealing, masking or otherwise altering one's caller I.D.
    to deceive is a new tool in the hands of criminals. The
    practice of caller I.D. fraud can be tremendously harmful to
    consumers.
        While we have tried in the past to use do not call lists to
    provide some privacy for citizens, some people have found a way
    to get around that by hijacking your phone number that can
    bypass that protection.
        I believe Congress must enact a law to penalize caller I.D.
    fraud perpetrators. This bill is particularly necessary to
    protect American families, the elderly and businesses, because
    illegally using another person's phone number could have
    limitless unlawful applications.
        It doesn't take much imagination to realize how this could
    be. A criminal could try to obtain personal financial
    information from individuals by using a bank's phone number. An
    ex-spouse could harass a former wife or husband who has blocked
    calls from their line.
        A pedophile could stalk a child by stealing a school phone
    number or the phone number of a friend of this child. A sexual
    predator can use a doctor's office phone number. A terrorist
    can make threats to government. The list goes on and on.
        But this is not just a possibility. There is actually
    several examples. One of them is laid out in an AARP Bulletin.
    I would be glad to pass this on, if you wish, Mr. Chairman, for
    inclusion in the record, reported cases in which people
    received calls that they made false claims that they missed
    jury duty.
        To avoid prosecution, the individuals were asked for their
    Social Security number and other personal information. The
    phone number that appeared on their caller I.D., it was the
    local courthouse, so people assumed the caller was telling the
    truth.
        A security company has stated that criminals have accessed
    legal call spoofing Internet sites, such as this one over here
    to my side, in order to protect their identities while they
    bought stolen credit card numbers. They then used a wire
    service such as Western Union and a fake caller I.D. and
    ordered cash transfer money to themselves.
        SWAT teams have been called upon to surround empty
    buildings or other inhabited places, such as in New Brunswick,
    New Jersey, after police received a call from a woman who said
    she was being held hostage in an apartment. She was not in the
    apartment. The woman had intentionally used a false caller I.D.
    number. Imagine what might have happened.
        And I also note that some of these call spoofing sites also
    offer that they will disguise your voice as well as alter your
    phone number.
        For these reasons, I introduced H.R. 5304 in the last
    Congress. That provided some penalties up to $250,000 and some
    fines. In your current version, you have cleared up many of the
    ambiguities that existed in the first bill and made it clear
    what constitutes criminal activity and what is worthy of a
    fine, or imprisonment or both.
        I was pleased to work with the Subcommittee again this year
    to improve the PHONE Act by including the forfeiture of
    equipment used by criminals in call spoofing and adding call
    spoofing to lists of unlawful activities associated with money
    laundering.
        Today, this Subcommittee is proactively considering a good
    idea that addresses a problem before more serious tragedies
    occur. Today we have a chance to help stop crime, prevent
    identity theft and protect lives.
        I applaud the Chairman and the Ranking Member for making
    this legislation a priority of this Subcommittee. I would like
    to thank all of you on this Committee for working with me on
    this bill and for your commitment to the personal identity
    security of all Americans.
        And of course, I would be happy to answer any questions
    later that you might have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
      Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tim Murphy, a Representative in
                    Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Forbes, distinguished colleagues of
    the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak before you today on
    behalf of updated legislation that I introduced in the 109th Congress,
    the Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement Act, or
    the PHONE Act.
        Identity theft has become an increasingly critical problem for
    consumers. Last year the Federal Trade Commission revealed that 10
    million individuals are victims of identity theft each year, and
    identity theft is the number one consumer complaint from over 255,000
    individuals in each of the fifty states. The disastrous implications of
    identity theft for consumers include damaged credit and financial ruin,
    and the effects can tear apart families.
        Congress has repeatedly tried to prevent identity theft, most
    recently with the passage of my bill, H.R. 5304. Unfortunately, with
    new technology comes new risks and new opportunities for criminals to
    skirt the law. One of these technologies used by thieves is the
    practice of ``call spoofing,'' or ``caller ID fraud,'' where one masks
    their identity by altering their outbound caller ID number in order to
    mislead the call recipient. Some may describe call spoofing as a way to
    maintain caller privacy. But it is nothing less than fraud.
        Stealing, masking or otherwise altering one's caller identification
    to deceive is a new tool in the hands of criminals. The practice of
    caller ID fraud can be tremendously harmful to consumers.
        Consider the effects of the false use of caller ID in other areas.
    Past federal and state efforts to block unwanted phone solicitations
    with ``Do Not Call'' lists was to provide some privacy for citizens.
    But when someone hijacks your phone number, they can bypass that
    protection.
        I believe Congress must enact a law to penalize caller ID fraud
    perpetrators. This bill is particularly necessary to protect American
    families, the elderly and businesses, because illegally using another
    person's phone number could have limitless unlawful applications. It
    doesn't take much imagination to understand how dangerous this practice
    could be for unlawful people:

              A criminal could try to obtain personal financial
            information from individuals by using a bank's phone number,

              An ex-spouse could harass a former wife or husband
            who has blocked calls from the ex-spouse's phone line,

              A pedophile could stalk a child by stealing a school
            phone number or the phone number of a friend of the child,

              A sexual predator could use a doctor's office phone
            number, or

              A terrorist could make threats from a government
            phone number.

        The criminal use of caller ID fraud is not just a possibility. Here
    are some real world examples of caller ID fraud that are real and very
    disturbing:

              The AARP Bulletin reported cases in which people
            received calls that made false claims that they missed jury
            duty. To avoid prosecution, these individuals were asked for
            their Social Security number and other personal information.
            The phone number that appeared on their caller ID was from the
            local courthouse, so people assumed the caller was telling the
            truth.

              The security company, Secure Science Corporation, has
            stated that criminals have accessed legal call spoofing
            Internet sites in order to protect their identities while they
            bought stolen credit card numbers. These individuals then
            called a money transfer service such as Western Union and used
            a fake Caller ID and a stolen credit card number to order cash
            transfers to themselves.

              In 2005, SWAT teams surrounded an empty building in
            New Brunswick, New Jersey, after police received a call from a
            woman who said she was being held hostage in an apartment. She
            was not in the apartment, and the woman had intentionally used
            a false caller ID. Imagine what might have happened.

        For these reasons, I introduced H.R. 5304 in the 109th Congress to
    punish those who engage in the intentional practice of misleading
    others through caller ID fraud. Violators of the bill would be subject
    to a penalty of up to five years in prison and fines of $250,000.
    Unfortunately, pursuing these criminals is difficult and particularly
    resource intensive.
        In the 109th Congress, I also cosponsored H.R. 5126, the Truth in
    Caller ID Act. However, H.R. 5126 only asked the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) to create a rule to prohibit caller ID fraud in six
    months. There are no penalties in the bill and the Senate did not pass
    this legislation. I also included an amendment to prompt the FCC to
    address the practice of caller ID fraud in H.R. 5672, the Fiscal Year
    2007 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Act but
    Congress was unable to sign H.R. 5672 into law. I believe that my bill,
    H.R. 5304, appropriately went further by amending criminal law to fully
    protect Americans from the practice of caller ID fraud, and the House
    agreed when we passed H.R 5304 in the 109th Congress. I was pleased to
    work with the Subcommittee again this year to improve the PHONE Act by
    including the forfeiture of equipment used by criminals in call
    spoofing and adding call spoofing to the list of unlawful activities
    associated with money laundering.
        Over the years, Congress has been criticized as a reactive
    institution. Today, this subcommittee is proactively considering a good
    idea that addresses a problem before more serious tragedies occur.
    Today we have a chance to help stop crime, prevent identity theft and
    protect lives.
        I applaud the chairman for making this legislation a priority of
    his subcommittee. I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member
    of the Subcommittee for working with me on this bill and for their
    commitment to the personal identity security of all Americans. I would
    be happy to answer any questions you might have.

       TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Mr. Udall. Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes, thank
    you for the opportunity to speak about the methamphetamine
    epidemic on Native American lands and my bill, which aims to
    give tribes resources to combat this ongoing situation.
        The manufacture and use of meth is one of the fastest
    growing drug problems in the nation. Meth is easy to make, with
    the recipe easily available on the Internet and many of its
    ingredients being common to household products.
        According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, there
    were over 12,000 clandestine laboratory incidents in 48 States
    in 2005.
        In addition to its production throughout the country, a
    substantial amount of meth is smuggled into the country. The
    amount of methamphetamine seized at or between the United
    States and the Mexico border ports of entry increased by more
    than 75 percent from 2002 to 2004.
        While increased regulation of the sale and use of meth's
    precursor chemicals has recently led to a decline in domestic
    production, drug traffickers have supplanted this decrease with
    meth produced in other countries.
        Unfortunately, the meth situation has been
    disproportionately worse in Native American communities. The
    2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported, ``Past-
    year methamphetamine use rate of 1.7 percent for American
    Indians and Alaskan Natives and 2.2 percent for Native
    Hawaiians.''
        Compare this to use rates for other ethnicities: .7 percent
    for Whites, .5 percent for Hispanics, .2 percent for Asians,
    and .1 percent for African Americans.
        Additionally, while conducting the National Methamphetamine
    Initiative Survey of Native American law enforcement agencies,
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs' first question was, ``What drug
    poses the greatest threat to your reservation?''
        Seventy-four percent of all respondents indicated that meth
    posed the greatest threat to their communities. Placing a very
    distant second to meth was marijuana, at 11 percent.
        Congress has worked to address the growing methamphetamine
    epidemic. Last year Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine
    Epidemic Act as part of the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT
    Act.
        The meth provisions were designed to control and regulate
    the availability of meth and its precursor ingredients, to help
    with lab cleanup. It also authorized funding for three
    important grant programs: the COPS Meth Hot Spots program, the
    Drug-Endangered Children program, and the Pregnant and
    Parenting Women Offenders program.
        Unfortunately, the tribal governments were unintentionally
    left out as possible applicants for the Hot Spots and Drug-
    Endangered Children's programs.
        Additionally, while tribes were included as eligible
    applicants for the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders Grant
    Program, clarifying language is needed to ensure there is ample
    coordination with tribal service providers.
        My legislation, the Native American Methamphetamine
    Enforcement and Treatment Act, seeks to rectify this by
    ensuring that, consistent with tribal sovereignty, tribes can
    apply for the Hot Spots and Drug-Endangered Children grant
    programs.
        It also guarantees greater coordination with tribal service
    providers in the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders grant
    program.
        Before I conclude, I want to take a minute to thank
    Representative Dale Kildee, who is lead co-sponsor of this
    legislation, not only for his support but for his work on this
    issue during the last Congress.
        This is one of the many critically important issues Mr.
    Kildee has championed as co-chair of the Congressional Native
    American Caucus. I am honored to be one of Mr. Kildee's co-vice
    chairs on the caucus and honored to work with him on this
    legislation.
        I also want to acknowledge Navajo Nation vice president Ben
    Shelly. As vice president of one of the largest tribes in the
    United States, I believe he will be able to share with us some
    valuable insight on this growing issue, as well as how it is
    being dealt with at the local level.
        I would like to thank him for his willingness to travel out
    here to testify on the importance of this issue.
        Mr. Chairman, tribes have access to these programs to
    combat the meth epidemic on their lands and in their
    communities.
        I urge the Members of the Committee to pass this
    legislation and thank you once again for holding this hearing
    and for allowing me to testify.
        And I welcome any questions from Members of the Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
      Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in
                     Congress from the State of New Mexico
        Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes:
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the methamphetamine
    epidemic on Native American lands, and my bill, which aims to give
    tribes resources to combat this ongoing situation.
        The manufacturing and use of meth is one of the fastest growing
    drug problems in the nation. It is easy to make, with the recipe
    readily available on the internet and many of its ingredients being
    common household products. In 2005, the Drug Enforcement
    Administration, along with state and local law enforcement officials,
    counted over twelve thousand clandestine laboratory incidents in forty-
    eight states.
        In addition to its production throughout the country, a substantial
    amount of meth is smuggled into the country. The amount of
    methamphetamine seized at or between United States and Mexico border
    ports of entry increased by more than seventy-five percent from 2002 to
    2004. There has been a recent decline in domestic production due to
    increased regulation of the sale and use of the chemicals that go into
    the creation of meth. Drug traffickers, however, have supplanted this
    decrease with meth produced in other countries. In total, the DEA
    seized over two thousand kilograms of meth in 2005.
        While the facts and statistics at a nationwide level are disturbing
    enough, the situation has been disproportionately worse in Native
    American communities. The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
    reported a ``past year methamphetamine use'' rate of 1.7 percent for
    American Indians and Alaskan Natives and 2.2 percent for Native
    Hawaiians. Compare this to use rates for other ethnicities--.7% for
    whites, .5 percent for Hispanics, .2 percent for Asians, and .1 percent
    for African Americans. Additionally, while conducting the National
    Methamphetamine Initiative Survey of Native American law enforcement
    agencies, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' first question was ``What drug
    poses the greatest threat to your reservation?'' Seventy-four percent
    of all respondents indicated that meth posed the greatest threat to
    their communities. Placing a very distant second to meth was marijuana,
    at eleven percent.
        Congress has taken steps to address the growing methamphetamine
    epidemic. Last year Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic
    Act as part of the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. The
    legislation included provisions designed to control and regulate the
    availability of meth and its precursor ingredients and to expand
    measures related to lab cleanup. It also authorized funding for three
    important grant programs--the COPS Meth Hot Spots program, the Drug-
    Endangered Children program, and the Pregnant and Parenting Women
    Offenders program.
        The Hot Spots program specifically provides funding for a broad
    range of initiatives designed to assist state and local law enforcement
    in undertaking anti-methamphetamine initiatives. The Drug-Endangered
    Children Grant Program provides comprehensive services to assist
    children who live in a home where meth has been used, manufactured and
    sold. The Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders Grant Program is
    designed to facilitate cooperation between the criminal justice, child
    welfare, and substance abuse systems in order to reduce the use of
    drugs by pregnant women and those with dependant children.
        These are all extremely important programs, and unfortunately,
    tribal governments were unintentionally left out as possible applicants
    for both the Hot Spots and Drug-Endangered Children programs. And while
    tribes were included as eligible applicants for the Pregnant and
    Parenting Women Offenders Grant Program, clarifying language is needed
    to ensure there is ample coordination with tribal service providers.
        It is for these reasons, that I introduced the Native American
    Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act. This legislation seeks
    to ensure that, consistent with tribal sovereignty, tribes can apply
    for the Hot Spots and Drug-Endangered Children Grant Programs. It also
    ensures greater coordination with tribal service providers in the
    Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders Grant Program.
        Mr. Chairman, tribes must have access to these programs to combat
    the meth epidemic on their lands and in their communities. Thank you
    once again for holding this hearing and for allowing me to testify. I
    welcome any questions from the Members of the Committee, as well as any
    suggestions or wisdom on additional ways address this situation.
        Thank you.

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        We have been joined on the Subcommittee--Representative
    Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin was here a minute ago;
    Representative Coble, the former Chairman of the Subcommittee,
    from North Carolina; Representative Delahunt from
    Massachusetts; Representative Nadler from New York;
    Representative Johnson from Georgia.
        I don't have any questions. I will yield to Mr. Forbes.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment both
    Congressman Murphy and also Congressman Udall for the hard work
    they have had on these two bills, and also for the work that
    our staffs have done in coordinating them and bringing them
    together.
        I did have a question. Congressman Murphy, have you had any
    experience with call spoofing in your office?
        Mr. Murphy. Actually, we did. An organization, we don't
    know who they were, ended up using our congressional office
    phone number to make calls to constituents.
        Now, it is part of the American way to provide freedom of
    speech. It is a whole other thing to pose as a congressman's
    office. And of course, we were then inundated with calls
    complaining why we are calling people's homes with these
    messages.
        That can certainly be done not only with Members of
    Congress but under any circumstance. You heard from Chairman
    Scott, about how someone might use this as a fake number when
    they are making other sales pitches, et cetera.
        So it is just another form of harassment that is out there.
        Mr. Forbes. I have also heard that they can use Web sites
    for call spoofing, and have you heard anything about that? And
    how do they go about doing that?
        Mr. Murphy. Well, what I have here is one particular
    company that advertises you can change your voice. It is very
    simple. You just call a number and use a PIN number, and then
    you can type in whatever number you want, be it a neighbor, a
    friend, an enemy, the White House, whatever that might be.
        While doing this, what these sites also do is they block
    your ability to use *57, which is tracing the call; *69, the
    last call returned; anonymous call rejection; or detailed
    billing. So they can really be very anonymous.
        And think of what this means, then, if someone calls a
    police department with a false alarm or a fire department, or
    if it is someone harassing an individual. You simply cannot
    react quickly without trying to find out Web site or what
    procedure was done, and even law enforcement officials find it
    difficult.
        There is no immediate response that they can have to trace
    this down.
        Mr. Forbes. And it is my understanding that there is not at
    this time any current Federal statute that deals with spoofing,
    is that----
        Mr. Murphy. There is none. Last year, Congress passed some
    legislation calling upon the FCC to investigate this, and there
    was another bill that--these didn't really go through the
    Senate, and this is the first one that really puts penalties on
    those procedures.
        Mr. Forbes. Good.
        And, Congressman Udall, can you tell us what sort of
    benefits can we expect to see on Native American lands from
    these grants? How will they utilize some of these grants?
        Mr. Udall. Ranking Member Forbes, I think when you are
    talking about Hot Spot grants and the other grants that are
    mentioned here, I would expect Native American communities to
    use these like other communities would, to go out, if there is
    a meth lab that has been busted, and there is a polluting
    leftover lab there, to utilize that to help the cleanup.
        In terms of the children grant, you are dealing with a
    very, very sensitive situation where there is a bust that goes
    down and there are children that are a part of it. For law
    enforcement to work with the children that are part of that and
    try to make sure they are well taken care of, that they are not
    impacted in a way that hurts them in any way--that kind of
    effort.
        And I would expect that you would see a much healthier,
    safer community as a result of the utilization of these grants
    on Native American land.
        Mr. Forbes. And I know we have some other fine witnesses
    that are going to be testifying in just a few moments, but it
    is my understanding there has been requests and demands from
    the Native American governments for this kind of aid, is that
    fair to say?
        Mr. Udall. Yes, that is fair to say, and as probably many
    of you on this Committee know, frequently it is the case that
    the trust relationship between the Federal Government and the
    tribes--that in various pieces of legislation and in the law
    today--tribes are allowed to go directly to Federal agencies
    and get grants rather than having to go through the States.
        And that has been a trend, I think, in place for 15 years
    or 20 years, and really what we are doing is just updating that
    trend.
        You will hear from the vice president of the Navajo Nation,
    Ben Shelly, who I mentioned in my statement. He will talk about
    the difference between going through a State and the tribe
    being able to apply directly and how much that makes a
    difference to them.
        Mr. Forbes. Good.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Delahunt?
        Mr. Delahunt. I have no questions.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Coble?
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
        Mr. Udall, I realize some grant funds to tribal governments
    I think have been in the pipeline. Do the tribal governments in
    your district have the resources to investigate and apprehend
    meth dealers?
        Mr. Udall. It is a mix, to answer your question directly,
    on whether or not they have the resources. Generally, the
    tribes in my jurisdiction have misdemeanor jurisdiction to do
    criminal investigations.
        On the other hand, felonies are handled under the Major
    Crimes Act through the U.S. Attorney's Office and in
    cooperation with the BIA and other law enforcement authorities.
        And so generally, it depends on the characterization of the
    specific crime and what crime it is and where the locus of that
    crime is in order to answer those questions.
        Mr. Coble. I thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Nadler?
        Mr. Nadler. Except to congratulate Congressman Udall and
    Congressman Murphy, I will emulate the Chairman and say I have
    no questions.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. I have no questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Udall, you can remain or
    leave. It is your decision. But we are going to go on with the
    other witnesses. And if you want to remain available for
    questions, that is a decision you can make.
        Our next witness is Mr. Barry Sabin, the deputy assistant
    attorney general in the criminal division, United States
    Department of Justice. Since January 2006 he has been
    responsible for overseeing the fraud section, criminal
    appellate section, gang squad and capital case unit. Prior to
    that, he served as the chief of the criminal division's
    counterterrorism section and has been a Federal prosecutor
    since 1990. He received bachelor's and master's degrees from
    the University of Pennsylvania and his law degree from New York
    University School of Law.
        Then we have Mr. Ben Shelly, vice president, Navajo Nation,
    Window Rock, Arizona. Prior to holding his current office, he
    served as a delegate to the Navajo Nation Council for 8 years,
    spent 4 years as chairman of its budget and finance committee.
        We then will have Mr. Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of
    the Humane Society of the United States. During his tenure, he
    has utilized a wide variety of strategies, including political
    strategies such as ballot initiatives and referendums, to
    successfully further his organization's goals. In recognition
    of his efforts, he was named 2005 Executive of the Year by
    NonProfit Times. He received his bachelor's degree from Yale
    University in 1987.
        Our final witness will be Mr. Jerry Leber, president of the
    United Gamefowl Breeders Association. He served his community
    for 32 years as an educator at the university and high school
    levels. During that time, he also was very active in the
    gamefowl community, which led him to his current position.
        In light of the vote, I think we will just wait until we
    have voted, just recess for a few minutes. It will probably
    take about 20 minutes for us to get back, so we will recess
    until we can get back. It will be about 20 minutes.
        The Committee is in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Scott. The Committee will come to order.
        We will begin with the testimony from Mr. Sabin.

     TESTIMONY OF BARRY SABIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
                  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Sabin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Forbes, Members of the Subcommittee. It is my pleasure to
    appear before you today to discuss legislation seeking to
    prevent caller I.D. spoofing.
        We appreciate the work of Congressman Murphy last session
    and his ongoing efforts today in support of this issue.
        The United States Department of Justice supports
    congressional action such as this to provide law enforcement
    additional tools and penalty provisions so as to protect our
    citizens and our country from identity thieves, stalkers and
    other criminals.
        Caller I.D. spoofing is the modification of caller I.D.
    information that causes the telephone network to display a
    number and other information on the recipient's caller I.D.
    display that is not the number of the actual caller.
        Recently, caller I.D. spoofing services have become widely
    available, greatly increasing the number of people who have
    access to this tool to deceive others.
        By outlawing the misuse of caller I.D. spoofing, this bill,
    with modifications we have respectfully recommended, can
    improve the Justice Department's ability to prevent and
    prosecute crimes ranging from identity theft to harassment to
    pretexting.
        Although the widespread availability of these services is
    relatively new, we are already seeing criminals use caller I.D.
    spoofing to facilitate crime, and we fear they could use it to
    hamper investigations.
        For example, caller I.D. spoofing can lend credibility to a
    criminal trying to trick an individual into giving up private
    information, such as a credit card number or Social Security
    number.
        By making it appear that the call is coming from a
    legitimate charity or bank, from a business's customer, or even
    from the office of a political campaign, criminals can more
    easily fool victims into giving up private information.
        Another example is a pretexter, who calls a telephone
    company pretending to be a subscriber and tries to obtain the
    subscriber's private telephone records. If the caller I.D.
    information matches the subscriber's home telephone number, the
    pretexter can more easily gain access to those private records.
        Caller I.D. spoofing can also create opportunities for
    abusers who could not otherwise contact their victims to reach
    into those victims' homes and further harass them.
        Misleading caller identification information could cause a
    victim to accept a call they would otherwise avoid or
    circumvent automatic call-blocking that would have prevented
    the harassing call from being connected.
        Obviously, caller I.D. spoofing can help to hide the
    identity of a criminal, but it can go further, actually
    defeating security measures that would have prevented a crime.
        Businesses sometimes use caller I.D. information as part of
    their fraud prevention measures, as a way of confirming the
    identity of the caller. If the information fed into these
    systems is inaccurate, the security measures might be defeated
    and allow transactions or access to private information that
    would otherwise have not been permitted.
        Moreover, caller I.D. spoofing services could complicate
    criminal investigations. For example, if kidnappers were to use
    caller I.D. spoofing, law enforcement involved in fast-moving
    investigations could lose valuable time chasing down the wrong
    path.
        These concerns are not theoretical. We know that criminals
    are using these caller I.D. spoofing services to further their
    crimes today. As noted in my written prepared statement, there
    is the matter in southern California of James Turner Hopper,
    who pleaded guilty to several Federal felony offenses involving
    identity theft and was sentenced to 30 months' incarceration.
        Hopper admitted that he obtained over 100 credit card
    numbers and associated identity information and used caller
    I.D. spoofing more than 150 times to steal money.
        In another instance, a criminal used caller I.D. spoofing
    and voice-alteration software to repeatedly call a police
    officer and threaten to kill the officer and his family.
    Because the criminal spoofed the caller-ID, it became very
    difficult to determine the source of the calls.
        Addressing the problem, of course, must be done carefully.
    We note that there is no present requirement that providers of
    caller I.D. spoofing services make any effort to verify that
    the person requesting to place a call with altered caller I.D.
    has any right to use the number requested. The lack of
    verification allows the misuses I have described.
        Moreover, some claim that caller I.D. spoofing serves to
    protect people's privacy, but a caller who wishes to remain
    anonymous already has an option to use caller I.D. blocking,
    preventing his or her number from being known.
        Simply put, the caller gets to make a choice about whether
    to reveal his or her number, and the called party gets to make
    a choice about whether to accept an anonymous call.
    Transmitting information that misleads or deceives the called
    party does not provide any additional privacy benefit.
        Overall, the Justice Department believes that this bill is
    narrowly targeted at harmful uses of caller I.D. and supports
    Congress providing the department the further ability to combat
    the threats caused by caller I.D. spoofing.
        The Justice Department has a number of recommendations that
    it believes will make the bill stronger and more effective. We
    have provided these suggestions separately and in detail.
        Among other things, the department suggests clarifying the
    description of the offense, modifying the punishment provision,
    revising the law enforcement provision to be an exception
    rather than an affirmative defense, and other suggested
    technical recommendations.
        The Department of Justice appreciates this subCommittee's
    leadership in making sure that our country's laws meet this new
    challenge. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and
    for your continuing support.
        I am happy to try and answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sabin follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Barry M. Sabin

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you.
        And I forgot to remind everybody--Mr. Sabin, I appreciate
    you keeping your remarks to 5 minutes.
        I forgot to remind everyone that we would appreciate it if
    you would keep your remarks to 5 minutes. I appreciate you
    doing so.
        Mr. Shelly?

               TESTIMONY OF BEN SHELLY, VICE PRESIDENT,
                     NAVAJO NATION, WINDOW ROCK, AZ

        Mr. Shelly. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, distinguished
    Members of the Subcommittee on Crime, thank you for inviting me
    to testify.
        I am Ben Shelly, vice president of the Navajo Nation. On
    behalf of the Navajo Nation, I am honored to testify on the
    critical need to address the meth abuse in Indian Country.
        A year ago, there was a meth-related execution-style triple
    homicide on the Navajo Nation. This happened in the small
    community of Hogback, New Mexico within sight of the
    community's chapter house. The first victim was shot 14 times.
    The second was shot nine times. And the third had seven gunshot
    wounds and a close contact wound to her head. The trial of the
    accused suspect is about to begin.
        Two months later, in March 2006, an 81-year-old Navajo
    grandmother, her 63-year-old daughter, and her 39-year-old
    granddaughter were arrested and charged with criminal
    possession with intent to distribute meth. Police raided their
    home in the tiny community of Felcon, Arizona, on the Navajo
    Nation.
        Four years ago, there were 14 meth-related deaths in Tuba
    City, Arizona, a Navajo town of 9,000. Back then, a study
    showed that 12 percent of the Tuba City teens used meth and 17
    percent of town adults were also using.
        According to the chief of special investigation for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, meth is the drug of choice in Indian
    Country. Crystal meth ranked second only to marijuana among
    illegal drug use on native land.
        The Navajo Area Indian Health Service tells us that 2,167
    patients were treated for meth in the year 2000. Over an 8-
    month period in 2004, that rose to 4,077 patients.
        In 2005, 40 percent of all drug-related calls for police
    assistance within the seven districts of the Navajo department
    of law enforcement were for meth use and trafficking.
        The FBI tells us that 40 percent of all violent crime
    committed on the Navajo Nation are directly related to meth use
    and trafficking.
        In 2006, there were 32 Federal indictments involving the
    distribution of meth in the Navajo Nation. Congressmen, as time
    goes on, the numbers reflecting police calls--percentage--
    assault, death and murder related to meth will likely go up.
        What we are faced with is the national epidemic of meth
    use, with all of its critical medical problems, violent crime,
    uncontrolled rage, suicide and murder, not to mention the
    simple problem of incarceration, broken lives and families.
        It bores deep into the traditional Native American
    communities of the North America. Unfortunately, the Navajo
    Nation was slow to act to this invasion. But it acted. In
    February 2005, the Navajo Nation council enacted legislation to
    prohibit the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession and
    use of meth.
        Even with this, tribal resource and facilities are too
    limited to implement the law to its fullest extent. We need the
    help that the Native American Meth Enforcement and Treatment
    Act can give us.
        Without question, this Federal law is in the best interest
    of all Native American and Alaska natives to amend the Omnibus
    Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 in order to allow
    native people to receive grants to confront the use of meth.
        Throughout Indian Country and particularly the Navajo
    Nation, there is a critical need for increased funding for
    prevention, education, intervention, treatment service, law
    enforcement, aftercare and maintenance programs for those who
    use and abuse meth and for the family and community that are
    affected by the production and distribution of meth.
        The Navajo Nation strongly supports amending the Combat
    Meth Epidemic Act of 2005 as part of the PATRIOT Act
    reauthorization bill. The measure will allow tribal
    participation for three grant program within the Department of
    Justice: the COP Hot Spot program, the Drug-Endangered Children
    program, and the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders
    program. Tribal participation will aid in the fight against the
    meth epidemic.
        Congressmen, thank you for providing the Navajo Nation the
    opportunity to testify and submit its written testimony on H.R.
    545, the Native American Meth Enforcement Treatment Act of
    2007.
        We look forward to continued discussion to bear some
    partnership opportunity that will help Indian tribe address
    meth in the Indian Country. And we thank you very much,
    Congressmen.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shelly follows:]
                        prepared statement of ben shelly
                                  introduction
        Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the
    Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, thank you for
    inviting me to testify.
        My name is Ben Shelly, Vice President of the Navajo Nation. On
    behalf of the Navajo Nation, I am honored to testify concerning H.R.
    545, the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act
    of 2007. The Navajo Nation appreciates the subcommittee's interest on
    the impact of methamphetamines in Indian Country. The Navajo Nation
    believes that it is in the best interest of Native American and Alaska
    Natives to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
    to provide opportunities for Tribes to receive grants to combat the use
    of methamphetamine.
                              health care services
        The Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency within the U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for providing
    federal health services to Native Americans and Alaska Natives. The
    Navajo Area Indian Health Service (Service) is one of the IHS' 12 area
    offices, and is the principal health care provider on the Navajo
    Nation. The Service serves the Navajo Nation, the San Juan Southern
    Paiute Tribe, and other eligible beneficiaries through inpatient,
    outpatient, contracts for specialized care, Indian Self-Determination
    and Education Assistance Act contract providers, and an urban Indian
    health program.
        The health care network includes six hospitals, six health centers,
    fifteen health stations and twenty-two dental clinics. The Service is
    responsible for providing health care services to nearly 237,000 users;
    spending $1,600 per person per year for comprehensive health services
    in its hospitals and health clinics. This is about 50 percent below the
    per person expenditures by public and private health insurance plans.
    The Service receives funding that only meets approximately 54 percent
    of the health needs for the patient population it serves, and provides
    health care services at a level of only $1,187 per person. As a point
    of reference, the federal government spends more than twice this amount
    on health care for federal prisoners.
                           navajo division of health
        In 1977, the Navajo Nation Council established the Navajo Division
    of Health (NDOH) to plan, develop, promote, maintain, preserve, and
    regulate the overall health, wellness and fitness programs for Navajo
    population. The NDOH operates with Federal, State and Tribal resources
    in the delivery of health services to the Navajo Nation. In fiscal year
    2006, the NDOH had a budget of about $61 million and employed 995
    health professional, paraprofessional and technical personnel stationed
    throughout the Navajo Nation.
        In addition to providing health care services to the Navajo people,
    NDOH advocates for enlarging health delivery capacity and improving
    public health concerns such as health promotion/disease prevention,
    alcohol and substance abuse, elder care, and diabetes prevention to
    name a few. NDOH promotes individual and family health, family unity
    and family support to prevent disease and promote health, wellness and
    fitness. An eight member Health and Social Services Committee of the
    Navajo Nation Council serves as the legislative oversight committee for
    NDOH.
                            health care disparities
        In spite of the ongoing goals of the US Department of Health and
    Human Services, Navajos and other Native Americans continue to
    experience tremendous disparities in health care distribution and
    funding. Federal funding for Indian health care has not kept pace with
    factors such as the rising costs of health care, increasing costs of
    pharmaceuticals, and competitive salaries for recruitment and retention
    of qualified health care professionals. The figure below depicts the
    impact of these disparities on the local Navajo Nation health care
    system.

        While Navajo people compare favorably in the following health
    areas, analysis of 30-year data indicates favorable Navajo rates are
    approaching the general population rates, and may surpass the U.S.
    rates over time as they have for other statistics.

                  impact of methamphetamine in indian country
        The escalating problem of methamphetamine is affecting the entire
    nation and has reached epidemic levels in rural communities including
    Indian Country. Methamphetamine use and production places tremendous
    burden on the already severely under-funded Indian health care system
    and law enforcement. While alcohol and substance abuse has been a
    chronic disease, the impact of methamphetamine is considerably greater
    due to the addictive and deadly nature of the drug.
        In April 2006, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a
    hearing on ``The Problem of Methamphetamine in Indian Country'' in
    which various Federal officials and Tribal leaders testified. At that
    hearing, the Indian Health Service described the situation as a crisis
    for individuals, families, communities, agencies, and governments
    across the country. The Indian Health Service referenced information
    from a September 2005 report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
    Administration's National Survey on Drug Use and Health. That report
    revealed that in 2004 an estimated 1.4 million persons aged 12 or older
    had used methamphetamine in the past year, and 600,000 had used it in
    the past month. The highest rates of past year methamphetamine use were
    found among Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. Methamphetamine use
    among Native Americans and Alaska Natives rated third highest at 1.7
    percent. The Federal government has sufficient alarming data on
    methamphetamine abuse in Indian Country to declare a state of emergency
    and provide adequate resources and support to combat this devastating
    problem in partnership with tribes, states, local agencies and
    communities.
        To combat the methamphetamine problem at the tribal level, in
    February 2005, the Navajo Nation Council enacted legislation
    prohibiting the manufacturing, distribution, sale, possession and use
    of methamphetamine. However, due to funding constraints and severe
    shortage of detention facilities, it is difficult to enforce the
    methamphetamine law and hold inmates who violate the tribal law. The
    Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS) is concerned with the lack of
    adequate jails and bed spaces needed to house the growing number of
    offenders. With over 30,000 annual arrests, the NDPS system could only
    house 100 inmates at one time. Many of these detention centers were
    built over 25 years and do not meet current building codes.
        The Navajo Department of Law Enforcement (NDLE) was established to
    maintain law and order by enforcing applicable criminal laws and
    safeguarding the lives and property of people on the Navajo Nation. The
    NDLE apprehends and incarcerates all misdemeanor offenders in Navajo
    Nation detention facilities, and refers all felony offenders for
    prosecution through the Federal Judicial System. In fiscal year 2006,
    the NDLE employed 48 criminal investigators and approximately 373
    uniform officers. The Department's $25 million budget covers three Law
    Enforcement Programs including Detention, Criminal Investigation and
    Police.
        The NDLE had been combating methamphetamine related problems with
    the Navajo Nation's limited resources until the U.S. Department of
    Justice awarded the NDLE an $181,000 Community Oriented Policing (COP)
    grant. This COP grant provided the ability of the NDLE to purchase
    equipment and support operational costs. In addition, Arizona Governor
    Napolitano provided $20,000 in funding to support the Coalition of the
    Navajo Nation. The Coalition works with Arizona Navajo communities to
    encourage coordination between communities and programs to address
    methamphetamine problems
        As an illustration of the impacts of methamphetamine on the Navajo
    People, in January 2006, a triple homicide in Hogback, New Mexico
    involved methamphetamine use in which the first victim had been shot 14
    times, the second had been shot 9 times, and the third 7 gunshot wounds
    and a close contact wound to her head. Unfortunately, the tragedy of
    methamphetamine use does not discriminate based on age. In March 2006,
    an 81 year old grandmother, her 63 year old daughter, and her 39 year
    old granddaughter were all charged with criminal possession with intent
    to distribute methamphetamine, and other controlled substances, after
    police raided their home.
        As a means to address the methamphetamine problems on the Navajo
    Nation, the Navajo Division of Health's Department of Behavioral Health
    Services (DBHS) directed its personnel to find alternative methods to
    address the problems associated with the use and production of
    methamphetamine in Navajo communities. Subsequently, several
    methamphetamine task forces comprising of community members and various
    tribal programs were established to coordinate and address the
    methamphetamine-related problems. The DBHS initiated methamphetamine
    abatement activities including the use of media such as radio station
    and newspaper, and presentations at various communities throughout the
    Navajo Nation. These mass prevention activities lead to the production
    of a film ``G: Methamphetamine on the Navajo Reservation.'' These
    activities generated national attention such as a story entitled, On
    Navajo Reservation, a New Tool in the Fight Against Drugs, which was
    featured in The New York Times on February 21, 2005
        The DBHS staff provided presentations on the effects of
    methamphetamine use at various locations around the Navajo Nation. At
    the conclusion of each presentation, the staff received stories from
    the audience regarding the effects of methamphetamine. In one case, an
    individual reported that her niece had begun hearing things one evening
    and claimed the walls were bugged. She tore down the walls of their
    home with a hammer and hatchet, and eventually crawled into the ceiling
    in search of the listening devices. Unfortunately, the ceiling was weak
    and she fell through to the floor below. Another individual reported an
    incident involving a teenager who did not know she was pregnant and had
    smoked methamphetamine until the ninth month of her pregnancy. After
    the teenager got sick, she ended up in the emergency room where doctors
    found her deceased unborn baby. The teenager later died from her
    ordeal.
        From October 1997 through February 2005, Navajo Area Indian Health
    Service facilities reported 450 cases of ``amphetamine-related'' abuse
    in its facilities. (See table below). Generally, the majority of these
    are emergency room cases. Strikingly, during this period, 35 percent of
    the cases were reported by the Tuba City Indian Medical Center located
    in Arizona.

        Additionally, the Navajo Area Indian Health Service reported that
    2,167 individuals were treated for methamphetamine use in 2000, and
    4,077 individuals were treated in eight months in 2004. The numbers
    unfortunately speak for themselves: this problem is growing
    exponentially.
        The IHS is not currently coding methamphetamine-use or abuse
    resulting in a pack of concrete data on which to draw an accurate
    picture of methamphetamine use. Generally, Navajo Area Indian Health
    Service facilities code visits and/or hospitalizations involving
    methamphetamine-use or abuse with one or two ICD-9 codes. The 450 cases
    reported in the table above resulted from a query of all visits limited
    to only the two codes and there may additional cases that exist which
    due to the lack of adequate coding are not reported
        According to the 2005 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)
    Report, 14 percent of Native American high school students used
    methamphetamine one or more times during their life. 10,691 Native
    American students participated in the survey. The National YRBS
    monitors priority health risk behaviors that contribute to the leading
    causes of death, disability, and social problems among youth and adults
    in the United States. The National YRBS is conducted every two years
    and administered in public and private schools throughout the United
    States, including on Navajo Nation.
        The Navajo DBHS uses an integrated multi-disciplinary approach
    model using Western 12-step Recovery, Alternative Treatment/Navajo
    Traditional and Faith Based Initiative components. Currently, the
    Navajo DBHS' services units include 13 outpatient treatment centers, 2
    adolescent treatment centers and one adult residential treatment center
    with additional services provided through contract services. One of the
    Navajo DBHS treatment centers located in Shiprock, New Mexico reported
    methamphetamine-related cases from the total enrolled cases during 2004
    to 2006. (See table below).
        Several major Navajo communities have formed Methamphetamine
    Community Task Forces (MCTFs) involving community members, direct
    services providers and government entities to create coalitions that
    address the needs arising from methamphetamines use. The Navajo Nation
    was one of the first Native Nations to take a proactive stance to act
    upon policy issues, options and recommendations in the areas of
    prevention, treatment, enforcement, and to develop best practices to
    educate the population with culturally appropriate programs.
        The MCTFs have developed various projects ranging from hosting
    expert forums, conducting audience interviews, facilitating group
    discussion to consider the full potential of strategies utilizing
    social marketing, media literacy or educational forums. Some of the
    other projects included:

              Printed brochures/facts sheets about methamphetamine.

              Newsprint and printed posters about the negative
            effects of Methamphetamine.

              Radio and television public service announcements in
            the Navajo language.

              News articles in local newspapers, health
            publications, and magazines at local and national levels.

              Power point presentations at community centers,
            schools and interested organizations.

              Participated in the production of a film, ``G:
            Methamphetamine on the Navajo Nation.''

              Legislative Policy Changes--Each methamphetamine task
            force provided overwhelming support to make methamphetamine an
            illegal substance on the Navajo Nation.

              Radio Forums. A local Radio Station KTNN hosted a
            series of one-hour educational program about methamphetamine
            for a period of two months spring 2006. The final program was
            broadcasted live for two hours in duration.

              Community conferences.

        Throughout Indian Country and particularly the Navajo Nation, there
    is a need for not only an increase in funding but also access to
    federal and/or state funding for the development of prevention,
    education, intervention, treatment services and aftercare and
    maintenance programs. These programs are essential for those who use
    and abuse methamphetamine, and for families and communities who are
    affected by the production and distribution of methamphetamine. Any
    reduction in mental health and behavioral health services funding that
    are used to address this problem only increases the use, abuse,
    production and distribution of this drug. According to the FBI, about
    40% of all violent crimes committed on the Navajo Nation are directly
    related to methamphetamine use and trafficking. In 2006, there were 32
    federal indictments pending trial involving the distribution of
    methamphetamine on the Navajo Nation.
                                   conclusion
        The Navajo Nation supports increased funding for Indian tribes
    across the United States. The enactment of H.R. 545 will provide
    opportunities for tribes to compete and access funds. The Navajo Nation
    recommends that an Indian set-aside provision based on the population,
    and incidence and prevalence rates be considered in the H.R. 545.
        Thank you for providing the Navajo Nation the opportunity to
    testify and submit its written testimony on H.R. 545, Native American
    Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007. We look forward
    to expanding and strengthening our regional and national partnership
    opportunities so that the Indian Nations will receive much needed
    resources to eradicate the use of methamphetamine in Indian Country.

        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Pacelle?

     TESTIMONY OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HUMANE SOCIETY
                  OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all the
    Members who are sitting here today for co-sponsoring H.R. 137,
    a bill to combat animal fighting.
        I am Wayne Pacelle. I am president and CEO of the Humane
    Society of the United States. HSUS has 10 million members and
    constituents in the U.S., one of every 30 Americans. We are
    strongly in support of this legislation.
        Every State in the country now has an animal cruelty
    statute that criminalizes malicious acts of cruelty toward
    animals. Dog fighting and cock fighting and hog-dog fighting
    clearly constitute animal cruelty.
        And in this country, at the State level, all 50 States have
    prohibitions against dog fighting, 48 States have prohibitions
    against cock fighting, and in 1976 when the Congress passed the
    law to criminalize the interstate transport of animals for
    fighting purposes, not a single State had felony-level
    penalties for these practices.
        Now, 48 States have felony-level penalties for dog
    fighting, 33 States have felony-level penalties for cock
    fighting, and we are expecting to see a number of other States
    pass felony penalties this year.
        What we are simply asking this Committee to do is to
    upgrade the penalties for this existing Federal statute to
    crack down on the rampant practice of organized and staged
    animal fighting in this country.
        You know, there are lots of controversial and tough moral
    questions about how we treat animals in society, but staged
    animal fights where people are putting animals in a pit to
    fight to injury or death just for the amusement and illegal
    wagering purposes is not a tough moral question.
        Three basic points, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the
    Committee. First is the animal cruelty. This is not a practice
    where the animals just spar a little bit and live another day.
    There have been documented dog fights where the animals fight
    for 5 hours at a time.
        Blood loss is a cause of death. Shock is a cause of death.
    There are many other painful and traumatic deaths of these
    animals--hog-dog fights where hogs are released in a pen and
    pit bulls are sicced upon the animals to attack the animal and
    bring the animal down, or cock fights where the birds have
    knives or ice-pick-like devices called gaffs strapped to their
    legs to enhance the bloodletting, punctured lungs, gouged eyes,
    and other grievous wounds, simply inflicted so people can be
    titillated by the bloodletting.
        We have seen time and time again, week after week--all you
    need to do is go to Google and do a search for ``cock
    fighting'' or ``dog fighting.'' See the busts that occur across
    the country and see the connection between animal fighting and
    other forms of criminal activity.
        These operations are gateways to narcotics traffic, public
    corruption, illegal gambling and even violence toward people.
    Just a couple of weeks ago, we were involved in a bust in
    Virginia. It is important to note that North Carolina has a
    stronger anti-cock fighting law than Virginia.
        Two-thirds of the people came over the line into Virginia
    because of the weaker penalty in order to participate in these
    organized cock fights. There was $40,000 in cash confiscated.
    There were seven members of MS-13 and the Mexican mafia
    arrested at this cock fight.
        Homicides at cock fights and dog fights--there was a man
    murdered. He won $100,000 at a dog fight. Four armed men went
    to his home and killed him.
        Public corruption--we have seen police corrupted in Hawaii.
    The South Carolina commissioner of agriculture was on the take
    trying to protect a cock fighting ring in South Carolina.
        In Tennessee, the FBI and other Federal law enforcement
    agents were involved last year in shutting down two of the
    largest cock fighting pits in the country. And I want to just
    quote from the Federal court papers, just a couple of excerpts.
        ``On March 15, 2003, the cooperating witness reported
    observing approximately 182 cock fights at the Del Rio cock
    fight pit.'' This is in one evening. ``On average, between
    $2,000 and $20,000 was gambled by the spectators on each
    fight.'' So if you assume an average of $10,000 per fight, 182
    fights, $1.82 million wagered in a single night at a cock fight
    in east Tennessee.
        A second excerpt: ``The cooperating witness observed a
    girl, approximately 10 years old, with a stack of $100 bills
    gambling on several different cock fights. Vehicles were
    observed in the parking lot bearing license plates from North
    Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky and
    Virginia, underscoring the nature of the interstate trade and
    traffic in these animals for fighting purposes.''
        A third quote: ``On April 26, 2003, a cooperating witness
    attended the cock fights at the Del Rio pit and observed more
    than 100 cock fights. The witness observed persons betting on
    the cock fights to include 15 to 20 children of approximate
    ages 7 to 15 betting on several cock fights.'' And on and on
    and on.
        Children, narcotics traffic, public corruption--how many
    cruelties perpetrated at these staged animal fights? For what
    purpose? You know, if you are going to use animals in society,
    there better be a compelling social purpose for it. But just to
    be titillated by the bloodletting is a terrible circumstance.
        And I will close in terms of--my third major point is the
    connection between cock fighting and bird flu and other avian
    diseases. The shipment of cock fighting birds is a threat to
    spread bird flu. It has been a vector for dissemination of the
    virus in Southeast Asia.
        We saw what happened in California with a less severe
    disease, Exotic Newcastle Disease. There were birds moved up
    from Mexico, and then it was a network of backyard cock
    fighting operations in southern California that helped to
    spread this.
        It cost the Federal Government $200 million to try to
    contain this disease. Twelve million birds had to be destroyed.
    That is why the poultry industry supports the legislation. It
    is why 500 law enforcement agencies support the legislation,
    local and State law enforcement agencies. That is another
    compelling reason to pass this legislation.
        Just absolutely in closing, Mr. Chairman, U.S. attorneys
    have told us they are reluctant to pursue cases because it is a
    misdemeanor. This Federal statute has already been upheld by
    several Federal courts. Animal fighting activities are rampant.
    The States do need assistance.
        This gives law enforcement at the Federal level and at the
    State level and the local level more tools to crack down on
    extreme animal cruelty and the criminal conduct associated with
    dog fighting, cock fighting and hog-dog fighting.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Wayne Pacelle
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify in support
    of H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. I am
    Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United
    States, the nation's largest animal protection organization with 10
    million members and constituents--one of every 30 Americans. The HSUS
    has worked to combat animal fighting since our organization's inception
    in 1954, conducting animal fighting workshops for law enforcement,
    publishing a manual for law enforcement personnel, and collaborating
    with law enforcement agencies in investigating and raiding illegal
    animal fights. Our investigators have been undercover at dogfights,
    cockfights, and hog-dog fights, documenting animal abuse, gambling, and
    other illegal conduct. We have worked extensively at the state and
    federal level in advocating for the adoption of strong anti-animal
    fighting laws, and we have sought funding and provided training for
    enforcement.
        I want to thank the primary authors of the legislation--Elton
    Gallegly, Earl Blumenauer, and Roscoe Bartlett, who have been dogged in
    their determination to crack down on this criminal conduct in the
    United States. I also thank Representatives Collin Peterson and Robert
    Andrews, who, at one time or another during the past seven years, have
    been authors or co-authors of bills or amendments in Congress to crack
    down on animal fighting activities.
        H.R. 137 has 300 cosponsors--more than two-thirds of the House--and
    included among the cosponsors are 30 members of the Committee on the
    Judiciary. An identical Senate companion bill, S. 261, introduced by
    Senators Maria Cantwell, John Ensign, Arlen Specter, and Dianne
    Feinstein, also has a long list of cosponsors, and a nearly identical
    bill was approved by unanimous consent in that chamber in April 2005.
    The House and Senate bills have more than 500 endorsing groups,
    including all major humane organizations, the American Veterinary
    Medical Association, the National Chicken Council, the National
    Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, the National Sheriffs'
    Association, and nearly 400 local law enforcement agencies covering all
    50 states. The only organizations opposing the legislation are
    cockfighting, dogfighting, and hog-dog fighting organizations. No
    legitimate agricultural groups or law enforcement groups oppose this
    legislation, to our knowledge.
               history of animal fighting issue in congress and
                         scope of proposed legislation
        Congress first passed legislation to combat animal fighting just
    more than 30 years ago. In 1976, the House overwhelmingly passed
    amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) to create a new
    section of the Act to bar any interstate transport of animals for
    fighting purposes. The Senate passed legislation banning interstate
    transportation of dogs for fighting, but did not include the anti-
    cockfighting language. When the matter went to conference, lawmakers
    retained anti-cockfighting language, but created a loophole that
    allowed interstate transport of fighting birds to states, territories,
    and countries where cockfighting was legal.
        In 2002, the House and Senate approved provisions in the Farm bill
    to close that loophole and to ban any interstate or foreign transport
    of fighting animals, including birds. Both the House and the Senate
    also passed enforcement provisions to make any violation of the section
    a felony. (Representative Blumenauer and Senator Ensign were the
    authors of these amendments). But when the Farm Bill went to
    conference--even though the animal fighting provisions in the House and
    Senate bills were identical--the upgrade in the jail time was removed,
    and the penalties for violating the law remained as misdemeanor
    penalties.
        Under current federal law, it already is illegal to:

            1)  Sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture
            if the person knows that any animal was bought, sold,
            delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign
            commerce for participation in the fighting venture.

            2)  Knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive an
            animal in interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of
            participation in a fighting venture, regardless of the law in
            the destination.

            3)  Knowingly use the Postal Service or any interstate
            instrumentality to promote an animal fighting venture in the
            U.S. (e.g., through advertisement), unless the venture involves
            birds and the fight is to take place in a state that allows
            cockfighting. As explained on USDA's website explaining the
            federal animal fighting law, ``In no event may the Postal
            Service or other interstate instrumentality be used to
            transport an animal for purposes of having the animal
            participate in a fighting venture, even if such fighting is
            allowed in the destination state.''
        Current law applies to dogfighting, cockfighting, hog-dog fights,
    and other fights between animals ``conducted for purposes of sport,
    wagering, or entertainment,'' with an explicit exemption for activities
    ``the primary purpose of which involves the use of one or more animals
    in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon,
    or fox hunting.''
        H.R. 137 seeks to import the animal fighting provisions of the
    Animal Welfare Act and place them in Title 18, and to build on them by
    authorizing jail time of up to three years for violations of federal
    animal fighting law, and to create a new crime prohibiting interstate
    and foreign commerce in the primary implements used in cockfights.
          federal animal fighting law is unquestionably constitutional
        There is no question that Congress has the power to ban the
    interstate transport of fighting birds. Indeed, the 2002 amendments
    making interstate transport a misdemeanor have already been upheld in
    the federal courts.
        Shortly after the 2002 amendments, the United Gamefowl Breeders
    Association (UGBA) and other cockfighting interests challenged the
    measure in Federal District Court in Lafayette, La., claiming among
    other things that the measure exceeded Congress' authority under the
    Commerce Clause. The court rejected every claim raised.
        In an extensive opinion, Judge Rebecca F. Doherty--who was
    nominated to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush--concluded that the
    ban was a legitimate exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate
    commerce because Congress was aware when it enacted the ban that ``a
    substantial amount of money was expended annually as a result of the
    flow across state lines of gamefowl for the purpose of cockfighting
    ventures.'' UGBA v. Veneman, No. 03-970 (W.D. La. May 31, 2005). Judge
    Doherty unequivocally rejected the argument that Congress lacks the
    power to restrict immoral uses of the channels of interstate commerce,
    explaining that ``it is no argument against congressional authority to
    declare that Congress is acting on `moral' grounds against those
    committing acts which an overwhelming majority of states have declared
    to be criminal.''
             cockfighting interests elected not to file an appeal.
        A few days later, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for
    the Eighth Circuit reached the same decision, rejecting a nearly
    identical suit claiming that the nationwide ban violates the Commerce
    Clause, is unconstitutionally vague, and effectuated a ``taking'' of
    private property in violation of the 5th Amendment. Slavin v. USA, 403
    F.3d 522 (2005). Here again, there was no appeal.
        In the face of multiple federal court decisions declaring that the
    current misdemeanor provisions banning interstate transport are
    consistent with the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, and
    Supreme Court ``takings'' jurisprudence, there really are no plausible
    legal arguments against enacting felony penalties for these
    prohibitions.
        But the cockfighters have nonetheless been creative in trying to
    evade the law in the field, and have hatched some novel if implausible
    legal theories. Some cockfighters apparently thought they could get
    around state and federal law and continue their enterprise as long as
    they staged their fights on Indian land. Such schemes are prohibited
    under current federal law, and will continue to be prohibited under the
    legislation before us today. Just more than a week ago, a federal jury
    convicted four men--three from Oklahoma and one from Texas--for being
    spectators at a cockfight held in Indian country, and close to 70
    others entered guilty pleas. As the U.S. Attorney said, ``gamefowl
    enthusiasts should know that tribal lands offer no `safe haven' for
    animal fighting.''
             background on animal fighting practices and state laws
        There exists a virtual national consensus that animal fighting
    should be a crime. Massachusetts was the first state to ban animal
    fighting in 1836, and a majority of states banned the activity during
    the 19th century, indicating that this activity offended basic American
    sensibilities relating to cruelty to animals more than a century ago.
        All 50 states now ban dogfighting, and cockfighting is prohibited
    in 48 states. Voters have approved ballot initiatives in Arizona,
    Missouri, and Oklahoma in the last decade to outlaw cockfighting in
    those states and to make it a felony in each of them. Cockfighting is
    legal only in parts of Louisiana and New Mexico, and reputable public
    attitude surveys reveal that more than 80 percent of citizens in each
    of those two states want to see cockfighting outlawed and made a
    felony; dogfighting is already a felony in both states. We expect to
    see both states ban cockfighting in 2007. In recent years, the practice
    of hog-dog fighting has come to light, principally in the South. Once
    learning of the phenomenon, state lawmakers have reacted swiftly.
    Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, Mississippi, and South Carolina
    have passed legislation specifically banning hog-dog fights within the
    last two years.
        Animal fighting raids have gone up dramatically in recent years.
    There are busts each week, and these busts reveal two things: first,
    animal fighting is very widespread and is conducted through the United
    States, and second, law enforcement, including federal authorities, are
    taking the matter more seriously than ever. Passing H.R. 137 will give
    federal and state authorities more tools to crack down on interstate
    and foreign movement of fighting animals.
        There are three nationally circulated, above-ground cockfighting
    magazines--Grit & Steel, The Feathered Warrior, and The Gamecock--that
    collectively have nearly 20,000 subscribers, and there are numerous web
    sites such as Pitfowl.com and Gamerooster.com. There are at least 10
    underground dogfighting magazines. Strong state and federal laws, along
    with adequate enforcement, are needed to crack down on illegal
    operators and deter individuals from participating in this conduct.
        All animal fighting spectacles operate on the same principles.
    Animals are typically bred for fighting purposes, and trained for
    fighting. They are placed in a pit--often after they are provided with
    stimulants to make them more aggressive or blood-clotting drugs--with
    another animal and then goaded to fight.
        Dogfights may last several hours, and it is not unusual for one or
    both dogs to die from blood loss or shock, as a result of hundreds of
    bite wounds. Cockfighting roosters have knives or gaffs attached to
    their legs, and the birds kick one another, with the strapped weapons
    piercing lungs, gouging eyes, and inflicting other grievous wounds. In
    hog-dog fights, boars' tusks are cut off and they are placed in a pen.
    One or more pit bulls are then released, and the dogs attack the hog,
    resulting sometimes in the ears of the boar being torn off or their
    jowls being ripped open. Most of the injuries are sustained by the
    hogs, not the dogs.
        The people who instigate and watch animal fights enjoy the
    spectacle, just as people in ancient Rome watched staged fights between
    gladiators or animals. Dogfighters profit by setting higher stud fees
    for winning dogs. The puppies of champion fighters are sold for $1,000
    a dog or more. A successful cockfighter can sell a breeding trio, a
    cock and two hens, for several thousand dollars. The cost of raising
    that rooster and two hens is minimal, but the profits are substantial.
    Fighting animals are sold to people across state lines, with the
    cockfighting magazines providing hundreds of ads for ``breeding
    trios.'' With the misdemeanor penalties in existing law offset by such
    large profits, the fighters do not even think twice before shipping
    these animals all over the country. The other prime motivation is
    illegal wagering, as spectators gamble on the combatants. No state or
    local jurisdiction allows this form of gambling as a regulated, legal
    enterprise.
             animal fighting associated with other criminal conduct
        Dogfighting and cockfighting are often associated with other
    criminal conduct, such as drug traffic, illegal firearms use, gang
    violence, and murder. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for
    training their dogs; trained fighting dogs also pose a serious threat
    to our communities. We have a pit bull epidemic in many cities
    throughout the nation, and dogfighting has played no small part in
    contributing to this problem and in introducing thousands of vicious
    and powerful dogs into our communities--threatening other animals,
    children, and even adults.
        In January, The Humane Society of the United States worked with the
    Mecklenberg County Sheriff's Office in southern Virginia and an array
    of state and federal law enforcement authorities on a raid of a major
    pit near the North Carolina border. There were 145 arrests, and three-
    fourths of those charged came from North Carolina, where the state had
    adopted a strong felony law in December 2005. Because Virginia has one
    of the weakest anti-cockfighting laws in the country, the practice has
    surged in the state, and the weak penalties in the federal law have not
    been a sufficient deterrent. At this cockfight, there was $40,000 in
    cash confiscated, and law enforcement authorities identified 7 members
    of MS 13 and the Mexican mafia.
        Just last week, HSUS investigators just infiltrated a pit in
    Kentucky, near the Tennessee border. Our investigators reported 500
    people in attendance, with the pit having theater-style seating,
    concession stands, and a $20 entry fee. License plates from throughout
    the South were evident in the parking area, with many people coming
    from Tennessee, where federal authorities in 2005 shut down two of the
    largest pits in the country. The cockfighters are an adaptable group
    and pivoted to participate in cockfights just over the state line.
    Investigators observed approximately half a million dollars change
    hands on just a single day,
        A particularly disturbing aspect of cockfighting is the common
    presence of young children at these spectacles. Children as young as
    six years old have been observed making wagers and acting as runners
    for bettors at cockfighting clubs. During a raid in Sutter County, Cal.
    two young children were abandoned at the side of the arena by the
    adults who had brought them to the cockfights. In another California
    case, a mother of a six-year-old boy was assaulted by her husband when
    she refused to allow him to take their son to a cockfight. He was
    subsequently arrested for spousal abuse and possession of gamecocks for
    fighting purposes and illegal paraphernalia.
        In 2005, as I mentioned above, agents from the FBI and other
    federal and state law enforcement agencies shut down two of the
    nation's largest cockfighting pits, the Del Rio Cockfighting Pit and
    the 440 Cockfighting Pit in Cocke County, Tennessee. These raids were
    part of a larger anti-corruption investigation by the FBI that has
    uncovered chop shops, prostitution, narcotics traffic, illegal
    gambling, and cockfighting in east Tennessee. Several top law
    enforcement officers with the Cocke County Sheriff's office were
    arrested, charged and convicted of a range of criminal activity; they
    were directly involved in illegal conduct and operating a protection
    racket.
        In two complaints filed on June 17, 2005 in U.S. District Court in
    the Eastern District of Tennessee, the United States attorney reported
    the following facts. This information shows the scope of cockfighting
    activity, the attendance of hundreds of people at a single cockfighting
    derby, the extraordinary sums wagered at cockfights, the interstate
    nature of the activity, and the involvement of children at the events.

            ``On March 15, 2003, a cooperating witness reported observing
            approximately 182 cock fights at the Del Rio cockfight pit. On
            average, between $2,000 and $20,000 was gambled by the
            spectators on each fight.'' (p. 6)``The cooperating witness
            observed a girl approximately 10 years old with a stack of $100
            bills gambling on several different cock fights. Vehicles were
            observed in the parking lot bearing license plates from North
            Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, and
            Virginia.'' (pp. 6-7)

            ``On April 26, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the
            cockfights at the Del Rio pit and observed more than 100
            cockfights with the displayed total prize money of $20,900
            posted inside the fights. The witness observed persons betting
            on the cockfights, to include fifteen to twenty children of
            approximate ages seven to fifteen betting on several
            cockfights.'' (p. 7)

            ``On May 17, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the Del Rio
            cockfights and observed that a full capacity crowd of
            approximately 600 to 700 people were present at the fights.''
            (p. 7)

            ``On May 24, 2003, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of
            Investigations, acting undercover, attended the Del Rio
            cockfights. . . . The agent observed approximately 200 to 300
            people in attendance and the fights on this day feature two
            teams per person with six roosters per team. The entry fee for
            the roosters appears to be $100 per rooster. . . . With
            approximately 100 teams participating, the operators of the Del
            Rio cockfight pit would have taken in that day approximately
            $60,000 in entry fees and between $4,000 and $6,000 in
            spectator admissions.'' (p. 8)

            ``On Saturday, March 8, 2003, a cooperating witness attended
            the cockfights at the 440 pit and observed between 300 and 400
            people at the fights. The witness also observed several
            vehicles present at the fights bearing out of state license
            plates, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Virginia,
            Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina. . . . The witness
            observed approximately 100 different cockfights . . . several
            thousand dollars were bet on each fight by different persons
            observing the fights. During one fight, the witness observed
            one individual lose $10,000 on the fight. The witness observed
            approximately $20,000 to $30,000 in bets exchange hands on each
            fight. . . . The witness also observed five or six children
            under the age of twelve inside the fights.'' (p. 6-7)

            ``On April 19, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the
            cockfights at the 440 pit. The witness observed between 80 and
            90 fights and estimated the crowd at the fights to be between
            200 and 300 people. . . . The witness also observed twelve to
            fifteen children, of approximate ages six to fourteen years,
            betting on individual chicken fights. Each of these children
            was wearing an entrance fee ticket attached to their clothing.
            (p. 8)

            ``On April 26, a cooperating witness attended the cockfights at
            the 440 pit. . . . While at the fights, the witness observed
            approximately 60 fights and estimated the crowd at the fights
            to be more than 300 persons. Additionally, the witness observed
            several children who were involved in cockfights and betting on
            particular fights.'' (p. 8-9)

            ``On Saturday, May 3, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the
            cockfights at the 440 pit, and observed 48 different
            cockfights. . . . The witness observed between twelve and
            fourteen children, approximate ages six to thirteen, inside the
            establishment, with most of the children gambling on different
            cockfights throughout the night.'' (p. 9-10)

            ``On June 7, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the
            cockfights at the 440 pit. Approximately 150 people were
            present and there were approximately 39 separate fights. The
            witness observed eight to ten children present at the
            cockfights.'' (p. 10)

        This litany of facts about cockfighting shows it is no benign
    activity. It is organized crime, where children are thrust into these
    dens of criminality with substantial money being wagered illegally.
    State and local law enforcement officials have been corrupted, and have
    themselves turned into criminals. The federal government has, within
    the last year, also been involved in a series of arrests of local law
    enforcement in Hawaii involving protection rackets for illegal
    cockfights, demonstrating that the circumstances in Tennessee are not
    isolated cases. And in South Carolina, state Agriculture Secretary
    Charles Sharpe was convicted of accepting $10,000 from organizers of a
    cockfighting pit in exchange for helping the group avoid legal trouble.
    Sharpe was removed from office and drew a two-year prison sentence for
    extortion and lying to a federal officer.
       the federal law against animal fighting needs to be strengthened,
                       and it is best placed in title 18
        During consideration of the 2002 Farm bill, both the House and
    Senate unanimously approved felony-level penalties for illegal animal
    fighting ventures. The policy reform under consideration today--an
    upgrade in penalties for illegal animal fighting activities--has
    already met with favor by both the House and Senate.
        Misdemeanor penalties don't provide a meaningful deterrent to
    animal fighters, especially when thousands of dollars are wagered on a
    single dog or cock fight. Relatively small fines, and brief jail
    sentences, are considered a cost of doing business. To be meaningful,
    the penalties must offset the gain that comes from participating in
    these crimes. For instance, most of the Virginia cockfighters arrested
    earlier this month pled out at $500 per man, and that simply is not a
    sufficient deterrent for people wagering thousands of dollars at a
    single cockfight.
        What's more, animal fighters know that federal officials will
    rarely pursue cases because of the misdemeanor penalties in the
    statute. U.S. Attorneys have told us they are reluctant to pursue
    animal fighting cases if at the end of the process they can seek only a
    misdemeanor penalty. The only reason that the U.S. Attorney filed
    charges in the Tennessee cases was the massive corruption and other
    criminal activity associated with cockfighting in Cocke County.
        Because of the varying penalties throughout the nation, we are
    seeing the states with the weakest penalties becoming magnets for
    cockfighting. In December 2005, North Carolina became the 32nd state to
    punish cockfighting as a felony. In February of 2006, two cockfights
    were raided in South Carolina-- a misdemeanor state-- and 55 people
    were arrested. A majority of them were cockfighters who lived in North
    Carolina but had traveled across state lines to escape felony penalties
    and fight in a state where the maximum punishment they would likely
    face was a $100 fine. If H.R. 137 had been law in February 2006, many
    of those cockfighters would have had to think twice before shopping
    around for the nearest state where they could go to commit their crime
    without fear of any serious punishment.
        When the Congress enacted the federal animal fighting law in 1976,
    no states made animal fighting a felony. Today, dogfighting is a felony
    in 48 states, and cockfighting is a felony in 33 states. State laws
    commonly authorize jail time of 3 to 5 years or more for animal
    fighting. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act brings
    federal law in line with state laws and other federal laws related to
    animal cruelty.
        Congress in 1999 authorized penalties providing up to five years in
    jail for interstate commerce in videos depicting animal cruelty (P.L.
    106-152), and mandatory jail time of up to 10 years for willfully
    harming or killing a federal police dog or horse (P.L. 106-254). Since
    the Congress passed a law making it a felony to sell videos showing
    dogfighting and cockfighting, it stands to reason that the core
    activity--animal fighting itself--should warrant felony-level penalties
    also. H.R. 137 provides up to three years in jail for people who
    transport animals for fighting purposes in interstate or foreign
    commerce--still lower than other related federal and state law
    penalties, but at least felony level.
        H.R. 137 also expands federal animal fighting law to include
    interstate and foreign commerce in sharp implements designed
    exclusively for cockfights. Razor-sharp knives known as ``slashers''
    and ice pick-like gaffs are attached to the legs of birds to make
    cockfights more violent. These weapons, used only in cockfights, are
    sold through cockfighting magazines and the Internet. To effectively
    deter the movement of animals for fighting, Congress should also
    prohibit transport of the fighting implements that make the sport
    possible and have no other purpose.
        Dogfighting and gang activity are now intertwined throughout the
    nation. High-end drug dealers are buying the most prominent fighting
    dogs and matching them for large sums of money. In one dogfight near
    Houston, Tex. last summer, $100,000 was on the line. The winner of the
    fight, Thomas Weigner, was later ambushed at his home and murdered by
    four armed men. Authorities believe these men follow the dogfighting
    circuit, and knew Weigner had a large sum of cash in his home.
        Given the widespread criminal conduct associated with organized
    illegal animal fighting activities, it is appropriate that the crime be
    placed in Title 18. The FBI is often involved in interdicting narcotics
    traffic, and has made a priority of rooting out public corruption.
    While this bill will not take any authority away from USDA and its
    Office of Inspector General--whose personnel have been very much
    engaged on the issue of animal fighting in recent years and who will
    continue to play a major role in cracking down on illegal animal
    fighting ventures--the bill will augment that work by allowing other
    federal departments to become more engaged on animal fighting
    enforcement.
     gambling with our lives: cockfighting and the spread of avian diseases
        The initial explosion of the Asian avian influenza strain H5N1 in
    early 2004, leading to the deaths of over 100 million chickens across
    eight countries in Southeast Asia, was traced back to the trade in live
    birds for commerce. The timing and pattern were not consistent with
    known migratory bird routes. The initial spread of this disease seems
    to have been via the highways, not the flyways.
        The riskiest segment of trade may be in fighting cocks, who are
    transported long distances both within and across countries' borders to
    be unwilling participants in the high-stakes gambling blood sport. In
    cockfights, the fighting implements guarantee bloodletting. Surviving
    birds may be sprayed with blood and infected, and even the handlers may
    be sprayed with blood and infected by the virus. A number of
    cockfighting enthusiasts, and children of cockfighters, have died.
        The Thai Department of Disease Control, for example, described a
    case of a young man who died from bird flu and who had ``very close
    contact to . . . fighting cocks by carrying and helping to clear up the
    mucous secretion from the throat of the cock during the fighting game
    by using his mouth.'' As one leading epidemiologist at the Centers for
    Disease Control commented dryly, ``That was a risk factor for avian flu
    we hadn't really considered before.''
        The movement of gaming cocks is implicated in the rapid spread of
    H5N1. Malaysian government officials, for example, blame cockfighters
    as the main ``culprits'' for bringing the disease into their country by
    taking birds to cockfighting competitions in Thailand and bringing them
    back infected. Thailand, a country with an estimated 15 million
    fighting cocks, was eventually forced to pass a nationwide interim ban
    on cockfighting. The Director of Animal Movement Control and Quarantine
    within the Thai Department of Livestock Development explained what led
    them to the ban: ``When one province that banned cockfights didn't have
    a second wave outbreak of bird flu and an adjacent province did, it
    reinforced the belief that the cocks spread disease.'' A study of
    Thailand published in 2006 concluded, ``We found significant
    associations at the national level between HPAI [H5N1] and the overall
    number of cocks used in cock fights.''
        According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
    Nations, cockfighting may also have played a role in making the disease
    so difficult to control. During mass culls in Thailand, for instance,
    bird owners received about 50 baht, about $1.25, in compensation for
    each chicken killed--less than the bird's market value even for meat.
    Some prized fighting cocks fetch up to $1,000. So it is no wonder that
    owners may be reluctant to report sick birds
        Fighting cocks were reportedly hidden from authorities and
    illegally smuggled across provincial lines and country borders, not
    only complicating the eradication of H5N1, but potentially facilitating
    its spread, causing some officials to throw up their hands.
    ``Controlling the epidemic in the capital is now beyond the ministry's
    competence,'' Thailand's Deputy Agriculture Minister told the Bangkok
    Post, ``due to strong opposition from owners of fighting cocks, who
    keep hiding their birds away from livestock officials.''
        A different poultry virus--exotic Newcastle disease (END)--struck
    California in 2002 and inflicted major economic damage, thanks in part
    to cockfighting. This outbreak, which spread to Arizona, Nevada, New
    Mexico, and Texas, caused the destruction of nearly 4 million chickens
    at a cost to federal taxpayers of around $200 million and led to a
    multinational boycott of U.S. poultry products.
        While it is only a theory that gamefowl brought the disease to this
    country then, it is a known fact that once END arrived, movement of
    gamefowl distributed the disease all over the region. It could have
    been isolated but for the vast network of backyard cockfighting
    operations. The high mobility of the gamecocks, related to meetings,
    training, breeding, and fighting activities, played a major role in the
    spread of the disease once it became established in California.
    Although agriculture inspectors could not pinpoint the exact route by
    which the disease jumped to Las Vegas and into Arizona, law enforcement
    had an idea. ``We'll raid a fight in Merced County and find people from
    Nevada, New Mexico, Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California,'' said a
    detective with the Merced County California Sheriff's office. ``They
    bring birds to fight and take the survivors home.'' Cockfighting also
    played a role in the previous exotic Newcastle disease outbreak in
    California which led to the deaths of 12 million chickens.
        During the course of containment following the 2002 outbreak,
    agriculture officials were staggered by the number of illegal
    cockfighting operations--up to 50,000 gamecock operations in southern
    California alone, according to some estimates. Despite being illegal in
    the state for more than 100 years, and despite hundreds of arrests,
    state law enforcement officials say cockfighting thrives--all of this
    in a state with a misdemeanor penalty.
        Former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman endorsed legislation
    to establish felony level penalties for violations of the federal
    animal fighting law in a May 2004 letter, in which she said that the
    bill would ``enhance USDA's ability to safeguard the health of U.S.
    poultry against deadly diseases, such as exotic Newcastle disease and
    avian influenza.'' She indicated that cockfighting has ``been
    implicated in the introduction and spread of exotic Newcastle disease
    in California in 2002-2003, which cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200
    million to eradicate, and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions
    more in lost export markets. . . . We believe that tougher penalties
    and prosecution will help to deter illegal movement of birds as well as
    the inhumane practice of cockfighting itself.''
        According to the cockfighters' trade association, the UGBA, there
    are thousands of operations that raise fighting cocks across the
    country. In states where raising birds for blood sports is illegal,
    breeders claim the cocks are being raised as pets or for show. A major
    2004 report released by the USDA on biosecurity among backyard flocks
    across the country found that only about half of the gamefowl
    operations--operations that tend to raise cockfighting birds--were
    following even the most basic biosecurity fundamentals, such as paying
    proper attention to potentially contaminated footwear.
        With American roosters participating in competitions in Asia, like
    the 2006 World Slasher Cup, it's clear that fighting birds are being
    shipped illegally around the world. All it takes is one contraband
    avian Typhoid Mary smuggled from Asia into some clandestine domestic
    cockfight to spread bird flu throughout the United States.
    Strengthening penalties and improving enforcement on interstate
    transport of fighting cocks in America, as well as putting the final
    two nails in the cockfighting coffin by banning the practice in
    Louisiana and New Mexico, may help protect the health of America's
    flocks and America's people.
        The National Chicken Council (NCC), the trade association for the
    U.S. commercial poultry industry, agrees. The NCC damns cockfighting
    not only as ``inhumane,'' but as posing a serious and constant threat
    of disease transmission to the commercial industry, and it has endorsed
    this legislation.
        In August 2005, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture Food
    and Drug Safety Administrator told a gathering of federal and state
    officials that current U.S. Postal Service regulations ``are inadequate
    and present great potential for contamination of the poultry
    industry.'' He estimates that each day, thousands of fighting cocks and
    other fowl lacking health certificates enter North Carolina,
    potentially placing the state's massive poultry industry at risk.
    ``Chickens find transport a fearful, stressful, injurious and even
    fatal procedure,'' one group of researchers concluded, and it's well-
    documented that this high level of stress can make birds more
    susceptible to catching, carrying, and spreading disease. The legal and
    illegal international trade in fighting cocks makes the blood sport no
    safe bet.
        Last year, law enforcement officials in San Diego County arrested
    individuals attempting to bring cockfighting birds into California.
    Birds coming into the country from Mexico, Asia, or other countries or
    continents pose a grave threat of spreading dangerous avian diseases to
    the United States, jeopardizing the health of poultry flocks and human
    populations. The idea of regulating this trade--now that 33 states have
    felony level penalties for this conduct--is unrealistic and fanciful.
    The American public will not tolerate decriminalization of
    cockfighting, and the best response now is the adoption of 50 state
    felony laws and a federal felony law that provide a sufficient
    deterrent to individuals who want to engage in this frivolous sport.
        Opponents of this legislation argue that felony penalties would
    drive cockfighters underground and make it more difficult to get their
    cooperation during disease outbreaks. But in Asian countries where
    cockfighting is perfectly legal, authorities have had great difficulty
    getting the cooperation of cockfighters and bird flu has spread in part
    because of their determination to hide their birds. Here in the U.S.,
    cockfighters have revealed their intentions to conceal their birds in
    the event that bird flu emerges here. Cockfighting magazines have
    instructed their readers to hide their ``best birds'' on an alternate
    property site and purchase months' worth of feed in advance so that, if
    a bird flu outbreak occurs, they won't draw attention to themselves by
    going to the feed store. This is an industry that already operates
    underground in the U.S.; it can hardly go further underground. It is
    time to eliminate the industry and all of the problems it fosters.
                  cockfighting is not an agricultural activity
        Since 1999, the UGBA and other cockfighting groups have spent
    hundreds of thousands of dollars to bottle up this legislation. The
    UGBA is a criminal syndicate, financing its federal lobbying activities
    at least in part from fees collected at illegal cockfights throughout
    the country. Staff from The Humane Society of the United States
    assisted the FBI in its investigation into public corruption in east
    Tennessee, and accompanied federal agents when they raided the Del Rio
    Cockfighting Pit. Our staff witnessed a letter from the UGBA on display
    at the pit thanking the Del Rio pit for a donation of several thousand
    dollars to the registered lobbyist of the UGBA. This criminal syndicate
    is paying lobbyists in Washington, D.C. to thwart passage of H.R. 137,
    and that should be unacceptable to this committee.
        In fact, the Del Rio Cockfighting Pit was owned by a former
    president of the UGBA named Don Poteat. The day it was raided the
    owner's wife, Donna Poteat, was the acting Secretary of the UGBA. This
    is nothing new for the UGBA leadership. A prior president of the UGBA,
    Red Johnson, was arrested when his illegal cockfighting pit was raided
    some years ago in Vinton County, Ohio. The man testifying today for the
    opponents of H.R. 137, Jerry Leber, is a self-identified cockfighter.
        It is a distortion for cockfighting apologists to suggest that
    gamefowl breeders--whether the UGBA or state associations--engage in
    legitimate agricultural activities. The USDA and others involved in
    agriculture do not consider the rearing of birds for fighting to be a
    legitimate agriculture enterprise and do not account for the sale of
    cockfighting birds as part of the agricultural economy, just as we do
    not consider the rearing of dogs for fighting or the growing of
    marijuana or cocaine to be legitimate agriculture operations. Farmers
    grow or raise food or fiber for legitimate social purposes, such as
    feeding or clothing people. It is unacceptable to raise animals simply
    so that they can fight to the death. It is unfortunate that
    cockfighters try to trade on the good reputation of farmers by
    attempting to associate themselves with normal agricultural practices
    and production methods.
        Animal fighting is a bloody and indefensible practice. It is
    closely associated with other criminal activity. Dogfighting poses a
    threat to the well-being of children with the rearing of powerful and
    aggressive dogs. Cockfighters, given their worldwide industry, may play
    a central role in spreading avian influenza to this country. The
    leading legislative body in the world should shut the door as tightly
    as it can on these practices by immediately enacting the Animal
    Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. Thank you for allowing me to
    testify today.

        Mr. Scott. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Leber?

     TESTIMONY OF JERRY LEBER, PRESIDENT, UNITED GAMEFOWL BREEDERS
                        ASSOCIATION, ALBANY, OH

        Mr. Leber. Chairman Scott and Members of the Committee, I
    would summarize my full written statement and request that the
    full statement and its attachments be part of the full record.
        My name is Jerry Leber. I am president of the United
    Gamefowl Breeders Association. I saw my first game rooster at 9
    years old, been an admirer of gamefowl ever since.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the
    United Gamefowl Breeders Association and the gamefowl industry
    on H.R. 137.
        H.R. 137 is a piece of legislation that would essentially
    make felons out of normal, hard-working, taxpaying Americans.
    Should this legislation be passed, the U.S. Government is
    equating the interstate and foreign transportation of gamefowl
    with murder, rape, child pornography and other heinous crimes.
        There seems to be far more serious and far more important
    issues facing our country, such as terrorists, poverty, illegal
    immigration, missing children and the like.
        This legislation is adamantly supported by domestic
    terrorist groups, animal rights groups, the HSUS and those who
    support extreme animal rights groups.
        The FBI sees the number one domestic threat as the animal
    rights movement. According to John Lewis, FBI deputy assistant
    director of counterterrorism, ``The animal rights groups pose
    the most serious domestic terror threat in our country.''
        Five of the top 11 people from the FBI domestic terrorist
    wanted list have ties to animal rights groups. These are not
    people who raise gamefowl. These are not people we represent.
        Over 12,000 attacks by animal rights groups in the last 15
    years has resulted in the loss of millions and maybe billions
    of dollars to our economy.
        John Boss, a physician, well-known activist in the animal
    rights movement, has openly condoned the assassination of
    people who do testing on live animals. He says that a few
    examples of assassinations will greatly change the views of
    those in the animal industry.
        The Humane Society of the United States and other animal
    rights groups kill an estimated 4 million to 5 million dogs,
    cats, kittens and little wet-nosed puppies every year under the
    name of being humane.
        The HSUS has senior managers who are reported to be
    convicted criminals as a result of animal rights activities.
    And these are the groups that support this legislation and
    advocate its passage.
        When I read Genesis 1:26, that man shall have dominion over
    all the animals and that animals were put on earth for man's
    use, I must have missed the part about according to the agenda
    of the HSUS.
        H.R. 137 on the surface seems to be supported by law
    enforcement agencies across the country, but individually they
    see it is a total waste of their time, energy and taxpayers'
    dollars.
        In my 8 years of working with law enforcement personnel and
    countless conversations, never once was this type of
    legislation ever mentioned as being wanted or needed.
        If illegal gambling, drug trafficking, terrorist cells and
    spreading of threatening disease exists as professed by the
    HSUS, bring the industry out in the open. License, regulate,
    inspect, test, tax, oversee. Don't enact legislation that may
    create more severe or greater problems. Enact legislation to
    resolve these problems.
        In a letter dated 1/23/07 from Ron Sparks, Alabama
    commissioner of agriculture, he states, ``Their''--the gamefowl
    breeders--``continued cooperation is imperative for a
    successful disease surveillance and prevention program. And
    their business has a powerful impact on Alabama's economy.''
        The last outbreak in the Southwest, 2002-2003, of Exotic
    Newcastle disease, a gamefowl breeder was the first to report
    that outbreak, and had it not been, according to Dr. Francine
    Bradley at the University of California-Davis, had the gamefowl
    breeder not reported the outbreak, it may have been five times
    or 10 times greater than it actually was.
        It was the gamefowl breeder who brought this to the
    attention of Government officials, not the poultry person or
    the backyard flock who first had it and did not report or
    failed to report it.
        The passing of H.R. 137 would have a devastating impact on
    our country's economy. Research shows that the gamefowl
    industry generates $2 billion to $6 billion a year for the
    economy.
        With more and more jobs being sent out of our country, how
    can we rationally and logically justify eliminating an industry
    that annually contributes billions of dollars to our economy?
        The WashingtonWatch.com Web site shows 88 percent of the
    people opposed to H.R. 137. These are unsolicited responses
    from your constituents, citizens from every part of the country
    that expect and demand Government to meet their needs.
        Is H.R. 137 for the hard-working, taxpaying, honest
    American men and women who have and will readily fight for this
    country for their lives and the freedom this country stands
    for? I think not.
        This legislation is supported by special interests, animal
    rights groups with some ties to domestic terrorism. To
    paraphrase the IFCNR report from 2002, ``An attempt through the
    legislative process to outlaw gamefowl activities is no
    different in motivation or effect than legislation that
    legalizes discrimination, racism and the violation of human
    rights. No matter the intent, no matter the basis, there is no
    justification. This legislation is built on distorted,
    deliberate, baseless and untrue attempts to portray a portion
    of America's diverse culture as deviant and deserving of legal
    banishment. Nothing could be further from the truth or more
    dangerous to our society.''
        The gamefowl industry, the United Gamefowl Breeders
    Association, and the millions of Americans who believe we live
    in the greatest country on earth respectfully, honestly and
    sincerely request that you not give in to animal rights
    extremists, that you not take way another freedom, that you
    vote to support the overwhelming majority of our citizens for
    the aforementioned reasons and oppose H.R. 137.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for the opportunity to share this
    information.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Leber follows:]
                       Prepared Statement of Jerry Leber

                                   ATTACHMENT

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Leber.
        We will now have questions, and I will defer and yield to
    the gentleman from Chesapeake, the Ranking Member, Mr. Forbes.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Shelly, thank you for being here and for your
    testimony. And I wonder if you could tell us if the funding
    problems that you have experienced in the Navajo Nation are
    representative, in your opinion, of what we see in Native
    American communities in general across the country.
        Mr. Shelly. Congressman, the question that you ask--direct
    funding would be a really good thing to the Navajo Nation,
    because we can use that fund right away and directly provide
    the service that the funding is used for. And I would say that
    would be the best way.
        Mr. Forbes. And how would you use some of that funding for
    health care, for example? What would your plans be for that?
        Mr. Shelly. For the health care part of it, we would
    probably do a lot of education and try to work with the health
    care facility to implement some of those preventions of the
    drug that we are talking about, and the fund would be used in
    that area.
        I do have the director of the health division here that can
    help with some of the technical question that is coming up. If
    it is necessary, I will go to that. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
        Mr. Sabin, can you tell us, on the spoofing, what is the
    technology that they use to do this? How do they acquire that
    technology? Do they have to buy it? Do they create it? Do we
    need to do anything to regulate the technology that they are
    being able to get access to for----
        Mr. Sabin. The increased prevalence and the increased and
    rapid technological developments in our society have allowed it
    to be something that can be done by an individual in a home
    with readily purchased materials. Voice-over-Internet-protocols
    allow it to be much more prevalent and widespread.
        So I don't profess to understand all the nuances of the
    technology, but the concern that law enforcement officials from
    the investigatory authorities--are saying that doesn't need to
    be the grand corporation. It could be done on the Internet. It
    can be done by an individual. It could done by a group.
        And so by that rapid development of technology for purposes
    that can facilitate other crimes through obtaining of financial
    information, Social Security data and the like, it really is
    something that we appreciate Congress' sort proactive ability
    to be ahead of what could be much more harmful developments
    down the road.
        Mr. Forbes. And there is nothing, as I understand, that an
    individual can really do to stop the spoofing from his own
    number, is that----
        Mr. Sabin. That is correct.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Pacelle, I was interested in your comments on the
    transport of fowl and the avian flu situation. And have you all
    done any analysis on the potential economic devastation that
    could come from the avian flu and that----
        Mr. Pacelle. Well, many credible authorities, with many
    more experts than we have, have said, of course, that a single
    bird infects our poultry flocks and then gets into communities
    across the country, I mean, it is cataclysmic.
        With the Exotic Newcastle disease which is an outbreak that
    is confined to birds that are essentially a dead-end host, it
    was $200 million that the Federal Government reimbursed poultry
    producers for in that State.
        So beyond that, I mean, the effect on the industry was much
    larger. The National Chicken Council, which is the major
    poultry producing groups, endorsed this legislation last
    Congress.
        Mr. Forbes. And, Mr. Leber, it was a little bit of a
    stretch for me to make the connection between testing animals,
    racism and, you know, the legislation that is up here.
        But given Mr. Pacelle's testimony on the spread of avian
    diseases, do you think that reducing the risk of disease would
    actually work to save the gamefowl industry money as opposed to
    costing it money based on the economic costs that you were
    looking at?
        Mr. Leber. My understanding in talking with departments of
    agriculture throughout the country and/or those involved in the
    national poultry improvement plan state that the gamefowl
    industry and gamefowl are by far the healthiest birds in our
    country. And when they personally go to inspect, check for,
    diseases they find them by far the healthiest birds in our
    country.
        When they are traveled, they are always traveled in
    enclosed containers inside, back of whatever vehicle. They are
    not taken down the road in open-air containers with feathers,
    feces, saliva and other things being spread throughout the
    environment, like the poultry industry does as a whole.
        So they feel, by far, we are the safest poultry producers
    in the country, the gamefowl breeders.
        Mr. Forbes. Mr. Pacelle's testimony was that he had seen
    even gang activity involved in that.
        I wouldn't think--Mr. Pacelle, do you have a response that
    you just want to----
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes, thank you very much.
        I mean, let's be clear. It was in 1976 that the Congress
    passed this Federal statute, section 26 of the Animal Welfare
    Act, that criminalized most forms of interstate transport of
    animals for fighting purposes.
        And on the farm bill in 2002, that loophole in the law was
    closed to ban any interstate or foreign commerce in fighting
    birds. So I am not sure what Mr. Leber is speaking about in
    terms of them packing the animals carefully when they transport
    them.
        I mean, I guess he is conceding that the industry widely
    transports animals illegally under Federal law, which is what
    we see all the time. All you need to do is look at these cock
    fighting magazines.
        There are 3 monthly cock fighting magazines. This one is
    called the Gamecock. This is The Feathered Warrior. They have
    advertisements throughout the book on sale of cock fighting
    birds, the sale of the knives and the implements. And these are
    aboveground magazines--about 20,000 total subscribers to these
    magazines.
        Mr. Forbes. Gentlemen, thank you all for your testimony.
        My time is out, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt?
        Mr. Delahunt. Yes, I thank the Chairman.
        Mr. Pacelle, is the Humane Society on a terrorist list?
        Mr. Pacelle. No, sir, we are absolutely not. We have long
    opposed any illegal activities to advance----
        Mr. Delahunt. Well, let me ask you something really
    directly. I mean, do you advocate human assassination?
        Mr. Pacelle. No. We are very outspoken about any illegal
    conduct done in the name of animal protection or for any other
    purpose. It undercuts the core values of the society, which are
    based on compassion and respect.
        Mr. Delahunt. Well, Mr. Sabin, you are in charge of the
    criminal division in the Department of Justice. Has the FBI
    made a statement relative to these extremist animal rights
    groups being the most significant domestic threat?
        Mr. Sabin. Actually, I am conversant in that issue, in a
    prior life dealing with national security as head of the
    counterterrorism section, and I did testify, ironically, at
    that hearing with Mr. Lewis from the FBI.
        So while I am not here to talk about that today, I can
    answer your question----
        Mr. Delahunt. Feel free, though. Go right ahead.
        Mr. Sabin.--to say that there was an individual at that
    hearing that had a lively and robust interaction with Senator
    Lautenberg relating to targeting individuals that were involved
    in harming of animals.
        So there was, under oath, on the record, an individual that
    made those statements. It was not in any way related to the
    group that Mr. Pacelle--if that is how it is----
        Mr. Delahunt. Okay. I think it is important to put that on.
        Mr. Leber, you are not suggesting that the Humane Society
    is a domestic terrorist organization.
        Mr. Leber. Sir, I was referring to the congressional
    testimony of Mr. John E. Lewis, and this is on the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation Web page, who simply cites that animal
    domestic terrorism--and he quotes specifically Animal
    Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front and others--as the
    number-one terrorism threat in our country. And I just----
        Mr. Sabin. That is an accurate statement, that Mr. Lewis
    said that both ALF and ELF are of serious concern to law
    enforcement, in terms of domestic. We are not talking about
    international terrorism----
        Mr. Delahunt. Okay.
        Mr. Sabin.--was of significant concern.
        Mr. Delahunt. They have upstaged Al Qaida and other
    organizations?
        Mr. Sabin. No, sir. I am not suggesting that. I am not
    suggesting that in any way. I am just saying that Mr. Lewis----
        Mr. Delahunt. Okay. I just kind of want to be really clear
    about it. I mean----
        Mr. Sabin. Right. There are militia groups. There is the
    concern over Mr. McVeigh and the lone-wolf type of activity.
        Mr. Delahunt. Okay.
        Mr. Sabin. Again, I want to stay in lane here today. I am
    not trying to get into----
        Mr. Delahunt. Well, welcome to, you know, the fast lane.
        Mr. Sabin. I am happy to chat about that topic.
        Mr. Delahunt. Right.
        Mr. Pacelle. You know, I don't believe anyone has ever been
    harmed by a self-proclaimed animal activist. That said, I am
    the first to condemn any sort of activity in that regard.
        Mr. Delahunt. Right.
        Go ahead, Mr. Leber.
        Mr. Leber. I believe the record will reflect that the HSUS
    funds the ALF Internet Web site and/or their use of the
    Internet.
        Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Pacelle?
        Mr. Pacelle. That is completely a false allegation. We
    don't even know what----
        Mr. Delahunt. Okay. Well, that is on the record.
        Mr. Leber, I mean, when you make those kind of statements,
    and you infer or implicate that there is a large conspiracy
    among people who care about animals as being, you know, a
    domestic threat to the nation, you start to lose me in terms of
    the credibility of your argument.
        I mean, I am capable of making a distinction between the
    gamefowl industry and cock fighting. You know, and you talk
    about losing jobs. I would like to outsource cock fighting to
    some other country.
        There seems to be, you know, two States left--is that
    accurate? There seems to be two States left. So 48 State
    governments have expressed their aversion to cock fighting.
        Mr. Pacelle?
        Mr. Pacelle. I mean, I don't want this to become a back-
    and-forth between me and Mr. Leber----
        Mr. Delahunt. Feel free. Fight back.
        Mr. Pacelle.--but the United Gamefowl Breeders Association
    is a group of cock fighters. It is just a cock fighting group.
    It doesn't exist----
        Mr. Delahunt. Is that true, Mr. Leber?
        Mr. Leber. Sir, we have members that show in poultry
    associations. We have 4-H students----
        Mr. Delahunt. Do you engage in cock fighting, Mr. Leber?
        Mr. Leber. No, sir.
        Mr. Delahunt. You do not.
        Mr. Leber. No, sir.
        Mr. Delahunt. You personally are not involved----
        Mr. Leber. No, sir.
        Mr. Delahunt.--in cock fighting, sponsoring cock fighting
    or associated in any way with cock fighting.
        Mr. Leber. I do raise gamefowl, sir, and I sell them for
    breeding and show purposes, but I do not----
        Mr. Delahunt. Okay.
        Mr. Chairman, whatever time I may have left I would like to
    yield to my friend from Oregon----
        Mr. Scott. The gentleman's time has just about expired. But
    I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon be
    allowed to participate if yielded time by another Member.
        Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Sensenbrenner.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much.
        I have had a lot of fights with Mr. Pacelle in the HSUSA,
    and I will start out by stipulating that I do not consider your
    organization, sir, to be a terrorist organization in any way,
    shape or form. I think some of the things that you advocate are
    misguided, so we will get into that now.
        We all know that every U.S. Attorney's Office and other
    prosecutor's office operates under a budget. And the U.S.
    attorney or the district attorney has got to make a
    determination on where the budget can be most effectively used.
        By increasing the penalty for interstate shipment of
    animals for use in fighting from a misdemeanor to a felony--the
    Constitution requires an indictment by a grand jury in the case
    of a felony charge, and it also allows the defendant, if
    indigent, to get a public defender at taxpayers' expense.
        Neither of those are required if someone is charged with a
    misdemeanor. Given that, why do you think there will be more
    effective enforcement if your bill is passed that increases the
    penalty to a felony, since it takes an awful lot more U.S.
    attorneys' time to seek and obtain an indictment and the chance
    with a public defender that the defendant will have a jury
    trial goes way up?
        Mr. Pacelle. Well, thank you, Congressman Sensenbrenner,
    and I am sorry we do disagree on this issue and some others. It
    was regrettable for us to get into a polarized situation with
    you last Congress over this issue.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, you know, I would like to thank
    you for spending all that money in my district, just for the
    record.
        Mr. Pacelle. You are welcome.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I got more votes than any other
    congressman in the country who is elected by district.
        So, answer the question.
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes. Well, I will be happy to answer the
    question. And thank you for inviting us into your district
    there.
        We have talked to numerous U.S. attorneys, and they have
    said they are reluctant to pursue cases with a small penalty.
    These cases do involve some investigative work. It involves
    lots of individuals. They have said, you know, we want the
    option.
        You know, this is not mandating that U.S. attorneys take
    cases. They have the same discretion as they do with any other
    felony-level penalty or any other crime. It is up to them, as
    the U.S. attorneys in charge of their area, to make judgments
    about how they allocate their resources.
        What I can say is that we--that is the case with every law
    enforcement officer at the State level, at the local level, and
    we have seen a trend in this country toward more felony-level
    penalties because more and more law enforcement officials
    recognize this is a serious crime.
        They recognize that cruelty is severe. They recognize that
    public corruption is a major problem. They recognize that
    narcotics traffic is a problem. All of the other social ills
    associated with organized animal fighting--this is a major
    underground industry.
        You have an organization here that is operating as an
    organized criminal association abetting these activities all
    over the country.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, animal fighting is illegal in 48
    States, and from what Mr. Scott has said, it is about to be
    illegal in 49 States.
        Wouldn't the more effective law enforcement be to have
    those who are engaged in animal fighting be prosecuted by the
    State rather than diverting the efforts of either the FBI or
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture into putting together cases
    with felony raps?
        Mr. Pacelle. Mr. Sensenbrenner, we work with State law
    enforcement officials, local and State. We train those law
    enforcement officials on investigating animal fighting crimes.
    And what we have seen is the nature of these crimes is
    interstate, international.
        You know, the State of Virginia cannot possibly look at a
    national network of dog fighting operators and really make an
    effective case.
        But you can have a U.S. attorney, in cooperation with other
    U.S. attorneys, crack down on a seven- or eight-State network
    of organized animal fighters who are trafficking in narcotics,
    bring children to these fights, $1.8 million in gambling
    receipts.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Isn't trafficking in narcotics a Federal
    felony even if you don't cross a State line?
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. Don't prosecutors have enough
    tools to get at people who are trafficking in narcotics? You
    know, isn't animal health something that the USDA vigorously
    investigates? And shouldn't they be investigating avian flu and
    mad cow disease rather than----
        Mr. Pacelle. This is the way to get----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner.--cracking down----
        Mr. Pacelle. This is the way to get at avian flu, is to
    crack down on these operations. What we have seen is when you
    do have felony-level penalties that cock fighters receive--
    there was just a guy quoted in the newspaper in New Mexico,
    which is now moving to ban cock fighting--he was a State
    legislator in Washington state, and he moved to New Mexico to
    engage in cock fights.
        You are seeing a migration of cock fighters and dog
    fighters to States with lesser penalties.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, if New Mexico is about ready to
    make it illegal, then we are 50 for 50.
        My time has expired. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler?
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Mr. Leber, you testified a few moments ago that you do not
    engage in cock fighting, correct?
        Mr. Leber. Yes.
        Mr. Nadler. So it is not true that you enter cock fighting
    derbies under the name Windbriar Entry?
        Mr. Leber. In years past, that has happened, sir, but no,
    not since the law has changed.
        Mr. Nadler. And when was that?
        Mr. Leber. I forget the exact date, sir.
        Mr. Nadler. Roughly?
        Mr. Leber. Four years or 5 years ago.
        Mr. Nadler. So you used to be a cock fighter, but not in
    the last 4 years or 5 years.
        Mr. Leber. Or whenever that law became law.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay, since that law was passed. Okay.
        Now, there is a newspaper called The Independent which had
    in January 2005 an article called ``Cock Fighting May Be on its
    Last Legs''--it is a major paper in Great Britain--which reads
    as follows, or part of the--says Jerry Leber, a retired primary
    school headmaster, said the actual fight was only a tiny part
    of the attraction of raising and fighting roosters. Birds were
    raised and trained for up to a year before they were ready.
    ``It is a challenge for me to do it to the best of my
    ability,'' he said. ``When I go into the pit with my rooster
    and put it down and hear people say 'wow,' well, that makes me
    feel proud.''
        Is that a correct quote?
        Mr. Leber. Not to my knowledge, sir.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay. So this is entirely incorrect, this----
        Mr. Leber. I don't recall that conversation at all.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay, thank you.
        I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
    Oregon.
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. I appreciate your courtesy, Mr.
    Nadler, and for the Committee allowing me to be here to observe
    and participate in this hearing.
        This is an issue I have been working with on the last 5
    years, and I will reinforce what Mr. Pacelle said. This is a
    problem of not having a meaningful penalty. This is already
    illegal in 48 States. Dog fighting is illegal in every State.
        But the U.S. attorneys are not going to act aggressively
    for issues that are misdemeanors. And since I started this, I
    have been ashamed that Congress has caved in to interests, to
    special interests, and been unwilling to have meaningful
    penalties for this.
        We tried it in the last farm bill and, frankly, it was an
    unfortunate circumstance as far as I am concerned.
        This goes on everywhere. I mean, I would like to think that
    my State is a relatively enlightened State, and I know that our
    Humane Society is filled with dedicated men and women and
    children, volunteers who deeply care about animal welfare--
    nothing to do with terrorism, which I find just sort of a
    bizarre comment, to try and connect them.
        But we found recently in Oregon, they found a cock fighter,
    43 live chickens, the equipment, the metal spurs and gaffs,
    $10,000 in cash, cocaine, meth. This is the circle that comes
    up time and time again. You will find it in virtually every one
    of your States. We had a professional athlete involved with dog
    fighting in our community.
        It is time for us to step up and give the tools necessary
    to stop this barbaric practice. Every time the voters get a
    chance, to my knowledge, they have resoundingly voted to end
    this practice. And I think Congress ought to be a full partner
    by at least having a meaningful penalty.
        I deeply appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your having this
    hearing. We had over 300 co-sponsors last session and could not
    somehow get it to the floor. I am hopeful this session, where
    we have about that number already, that with your leadership,
    your concern, we can make an important step not just for animal
    welfare but dealing with avian flu, these vectors, dealing with
    drugs, criminal behavior.
        It will be an important tool for law enforcement as well as
    signaling that we are joining the rest of civilized society.
    Thank you very much.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Does the gentleman yield back? The
    gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Coble from North Carolina?
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having this hearing.
        Mr. Pacelle, I am concerned about the terrorizing of
    researchers, et cetera. You did assure Mr. Delahunt, did you
    not, that no one from the Humane Society is in any way
    participating in these illegal activities?
        Mr. Pacelle. Absolutely. We have a policy statement
    approved by our board of directors to that effect. The chairman
    of our board is a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic. We have a
    tremendously distinguished board of directors. We have 10
    million supports of the organization. We are as mainstream as
    you get in terms of----
        Mr. Coble. I want to be sure I heard you correctly.
        In fact, we had an individual who assisted last year at one
    of our hearings, Mr. Chairman, who subsequently became a
    target--I am not suggesting from the Humane Society----
        Mr. Pacelle. Of course.
        Mr. Coble.--but nonetheless became a target.
        Mr. Leber, let me put this question--let me change gears on
    you. Could any provision of H.R. 137 be used to limit or impede
    hunting, in your opinion?
        Mr. Leber. Sir, it is a tough question to answer. I don't
    know that I have the understanding to be able to give a quality
    answer to that.
        My thinking would be that there is a list of animal
    activities that the HSUS has as a pecking order or a target,
    and everything from what we have discussed here today, sir,
    until the point of it being illegal to own a dog or cat or any
    family pet.
        And I think those are just a list of priorities that
    eventually will be getting to hunting, fishing, rodeoing,
    circusing and all those other activities I think are----
        Mr. Coble. Well, what prompted my question, Mr. Chairman
    and Mr. Ranking Member, it seemed like I had heard somewhere,
    and I can't recall from whom, who expressed concern about that
    it may impede hunting.
        That is why I put the question to you.
        Mr. Pacelle. May I address that?
        Mr. Coble. Let me talk to Mr. Shelly. Mr. Shelly has been
    put on the backburner here. Let me bring him front and center
    again.
        Mr. Shelly, is the meth being produced on tribal lands, or
    is it being brought in by drug dealers, or both?
        Mr. Shelly. It is being produced on tribal land and also
    being brought in. So I would say both.
        Mr. Coble. And what have the tribes done to attempt to
    eliminate the supply of meth?
        Mr. Shelly. That is why we are asking for a fund to deal
    with that. We are doing the best we can do interrupt the
    trafficking and also the production of our people doing it
    within the nation. And we are doing everything we can on that.
    We need help.
        Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
        Mr. Pacelle, you wanted to be heard?
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Coble, very much.
        Mr. Coble. And did you want to be heard again also, Mr.
    Leber?
        Mr. Leber. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        Mr. Coble. All right.
        Go ahead, Mr. Pacelle. You want to beat that red light
    before it comes on.
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes. H.R. 137, the bill before you, has a
    provision, it is section 49, subsection (g)(1), and it defines
    the term, ``animal fighting venture.'' And it basically says it
    means any event which involves a fight between at least two
    animals and is conducted for the purposes of sport, wagering or
    entertainment, except that the term ``animal fighting venture''
    shall not be deemed to include any activity the primary purpose
    of which involves the use of one or more animals in hunting and
    other animal or animals such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon or fox
    hunting.
        So hunting is specifically exempted, even if you are using
    dogs which are pursuing other quarry.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Leber?
        Mr. Leber. Yes, sir. It seems as though the point has been
    made that the gamefowl industry is the drug trafficking
    association of the country, and I think that is far from true.
        I think drug trafficking is at all levels of our society,
    from the top to the bottom and everywhere in between. And we
    are just simply a segment of society, and why anyone would
    think there would be no drug activity involved in the gamefowl
    industry would simply be saying there is no drug activity
    involved in any other segment of society, whatever that segment
    may be.
        But we feel highly that it is far less so in the gamefowl
    breeders than many other segments of society.
        Mr. Coble. I thank you.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson?
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Leber, in your written statement, you have written that
    the breeding and raising of gamefowl has held families
    together, created a sense of unity, trust and love for life due
    to the simple presence and aura for which the gamecock is
    noted.
        Now, gamecocks--and you represent the industry in your
    capacity as president of the United Gamefowl Breeders
    Association. Can you tell us exactly what a gamefowl is?
        Mr. Leber. To my understanding, sir, the gamefowl
    originated from----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I mean, what is it, instead of where it
    came from? What is a gamefowl?
        Mr. Leber. It is a rooster, a hen or a little chicken of a
    breed of poultry.
        Mr. Johnson. And what kind of games does a gamefowl play
    other than cock fighting?
        Mr. Leber. They are shown in poultry shows. They are used
    for food. The feathers are used for ties for fly fishing, and--
    off the top of my head, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. But the principal purpose for a gamefowl is to
    produce fighting cocks, if you will, isn't that correct?
        Mr. Leber. That may be the majority use, but----
        Mr. Johnson. In other words, most people who are members of
    your association engage in the game of cock fighting, isn't
    that correct?
        Mr. Leber. I could not testify to that, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. But you know it to be a fact that there is
    significant amounts of fowl fighting, cock fighting, that takes
    place throughout the United States of America, isn't that
    correct?
        Mr. Leber. I think that is a matter of record, sir, yes.
        Mr. Johnson. And this bill would seek to prohibit
    sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting
    venture. So in other words, it would ban cock fighting on a
    national level, would it not?
        Mr. Leber. I think so, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. And you are opposed to that, aren't you?
        Mr. Leber. I am opposed to the Federal Government being
    involved in issues where States should have the authority to
    make their own decisions, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. And in the 48 States where cock fighting has
    been declared illegal, you are opposed to those State rules as
    well, are you not?
        Mr. Leber. I don't think they are in the best interest of
    our country.
        Mr. Johnson. And so you are here to protect the cock
    fighting industry, isn't that correct?
        Mr. Leber. No, sir. I represent the breeders of this
    country who raise and show in the agriculture business of
    raising gamefowl.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I suppose that if cock fighting were
    banned, then there would be a rapid decline in the number of
    game breeders operating in this country. Is that true or is
    that false?
        Mr. Leber. I would not know, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. Would you speculate that it would be?
        Mr. Leber. I would suspect that if the demand of any
    product that is produced decreases, the likelihood of less
    production would follow.
        Mr. Johnson. Do you believe that it is okay for mankind to
    subject animals to cruelty?
        Mr. Leber. No, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. So in other words, the Federal Government does
    have an interest in protecting innocent animals from cruelty
    levied upon them by human beings.
        Mr. Leber. I would think if the Federal Government so chose
    to do that, they would.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I mean, is that the morally correct
    thing that we should be doing up here?
        Mr. Leber. Sir, I don't know that I can answer for anyone
    else's morals.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, your morals would cause you to protect
    those who would engage in animal cruelty with respect to cock
    fighting.
        Mr. Leber. Sir, I came to testify on the transportation
    issues, not on the cock fighting issues.
        Mr. Johnson. But in the process, you impugn the character
    of an organization, the Human Society of the United States. And
    I find that objectionable. It seems like you equated them with
    a terrorist group.
        Is that what you wanted to tell the American people and
    tell this panel, is that the Humane Society of the United
    States is a terrorist group?
        Mr. Leber. I quoted Mr. Lewis from the FBI, who said----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, no, no, no, no. I am saying, yes or no,
    do you equate the Humane Society of the United States as a
    terrorist group?
        Mr. Leber. Do I personally?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Mr. Leber. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. You do.
        Mr. Leber. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. All right.
        Well, I have no further questions for this particular
    witness.
        But let me ask you, Mr. Pacelle, when is the last time your
    organization has engaged in terrorism in this country, sir?
        Mr. Pacelle. Never. We were founded in 1954 by some
    incredibly compassionate people who wanted to stop malicious
    cruelty toward animals. And we have built an organization that
    has 10 million supporters in the United States, and our entire
    mission is based on mercy and compassion.
        So terrorism is a countervailing force, as far as we are
    concerned.
        Mr. Johnson. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Scott. The gentleman's time has expired.
        We have been joined by Mr. Chabot from Ohio, Ms. Jackson
    Lee from Texas, and Mr. Gohmert from Texas. And we will call on
    Mr. Chabot at this time.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pacelle, let me ask a couple of questions, if I could.
    I wanted to clarify some of the aspects of H.R. 137, the animal
    fighting bill that we are discussing; in particular,
    subsections (c) and (d) of section 49, which address the use of
    the postal service or other interstate instrumentalities for
    promoting animal fighting ventures.
        It is my understanding that subsection (c) prohibits the
    use of Web sites and magazines to advertise the sale of
    fighting animals and promote animal fighting venture. Is that
    correct? And does subsection (d) limit subsection (c) as it
    applies to cock fighting in States where it is legal?
        Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Congressman Chabot.
        Yes, subsection (c) covers the animal fighting magazines
    because these publications, which I held up earlier, are
    commercial speech and also clearly promote animal fighting.
        They advertise fighting animals, weapons for sale in
    interstate commerce. For example, over the last 12 months there
    have been 1,600 pages' worth of advertisements for illegal
    interstate commercial transactions in the main two cock
    fighting magazines, Feathered Warrior and The Gamecock.
        Regarding subsection (d), subsection (d) of section 49 is
    copied from the current Animal Welfare Act animal fighting
    provisions, which is 7 USC--I won't give you all the--it is in
    my testimony. The specific code is cited.
        Subsection (d) still acts as a limitation upon subsection
    (c) but, as before, only if the effect of that promotion is
    limited to cock fights in the two States where cock fighting is
    still legal.
        So as a practical matter, subsection (d) does not limit
    enforcement of (c) against the cock fighting magazines and Web
    site advertisements, because these materials promote animal
    fights in every State.
        They are sent to or read by buyers in many States who buy
    the fighting animals and implements and then use them in animal
    fights in States where cock fighting is illegal.
        So the basic gist of all that, Congressman, is that these
    magazines sell fighting birds, and they sell the fighting
    implements. And this is commercial speech, not free speech, not
    saying, ``Well, cock fighting is okay.'' They are promoting
    illegal activity, violating the Federal law.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you. And that is what I wanted to get
    into in my second question here. Are the first amendment
    concerns with respect to limiting commercial speech, as section
    49 does, viable?
        And does this bill prohibit all commercial speech or only
    commercial speech that seeks to cloak an otherwise illegal act
    into the first amendment? Is this consistent with Supreme Court
    precedent?
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes. I think the Supreme Court has been clear
    on the issue. There is no first amendment protection for
    commercial speech where the underlying commercial transaction
    is lawfully prohibited, as is the case here.
        And subsection (c) is clearly constitutional. It is
    narrowly tailored with this in mind. The first amendment is
    built in right there. It only prohibits commercial speech, like
    the cock fighting magazines with all of their advertisements
    for contraband.
        The magazines are not political speech. They are basically
    just catalogs with hundreds of advertisements per issue for
    illegal transactions.
        The sellers are just soliciting the buyers to commit
    criminal acts, and they can't cloak it under the first
    amendment just by throwing a little bit of non-commercial
    speech in there either. And the Supreme Court has been quite
    clear on that.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you. And finally, it is also my
    understanding that the clerical amendment made under the bill
    which repeals the criminal penalty in the Animal Welfare Act
    leaves intact the rest of the statute, which deals with animal
    fighting. Is that correct?
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Chabot. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        Oh, excuse me. Ms. Jackson Lee? I am sorry.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank the witnesses, and I want to thank Mr. Blumenauer
    for his leadership on the cock fighting legislation,
    particularly since we in Texas have a disproportionate impact
    or are impacted by the utilization of these animals.
        And so I will pose questions on all three of the bills, but
    I do wish to start with Mr. Leber on something I think we would
    want to collectively raise our voices about.
        And that is as I have been in the area of such activity, I
    know that there is a fight to the death in many instances. And
    therefore, there is bloodletting. There is the loss of an
    animal.
        And certainly for those of us who believe in the concept of
    the value of entities that cannot protect themselves--and we
    all have our different views--that that in and of itself is a
    tragedy.
        But my concern would be the potential for the spread of
    disease. Certainly, in light of the last couple of days, we saw
    the announcement in England of the massive strain of avian flu.
        And so my question is in the course of the industry that
    you work with, is there any protections and concerns--concerns
    first, and protections that you put in place, that would
    convince me that there is a protection against a public health
    risk with cock fighting?
        Mr. Leber. I think my answer to that would be that working
    with the Department for Agriculture and the national poultry
    improvement plans to continually monitor our flocks and to make
    sure they are completely disease free is first and foremost in
    the Gamefowl Breeders Association's goals and objectives.
        And that is our entire focus with regard to disease control
    and prevention. We need to maintain healthy birds in our
    society, and those viruses do not discriminate. They will
    attack any poultry specimen.
        And we just try to make sure, with working through the
    universities and Department of Agricultures, that we maintain
    the healthiest flocks in the country.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. But you don't know as to whether when they
    are engaging in cock fighting and letting of blood--you don't
    have any particular secondary industry protections that would
    protect from the spread of disease.
        And of course, I use avian flu, but there may be many other
    aspects of disease that could be engaged with the letting of
    blood.
        Mr. Leber. No, ma'am, I do not.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right.
        Let me ask Mr. Pacelle of the Humane Society that very
    question. What is to prevent the possible spread of disease if
    there are seemingly no real strictures and restrictions and
    guidelines for such a violent episode?
        Mr. Pacelle. Well, it is not a regulated industry because
    it is a criminal industry, so you don't have USDA considering
    gamefowl or fighting dogs--I mean, it is the birds that we are
    talking about here, but the entire animal fighting industry is
    a criminal enterprise, for the most part. Even in New Mexico
    and Louisiana, the operations are not inspected.
        I will say that it is----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So we don't know what may be spread or
    what disease may----
        Mr. Pacelle. No, we don't. But at these derbies where
    people come from all over the country to fight their birds, and
    they mix the birds, some of the birds die and are thrown in the
    trash. Others survive and are brought back to their community.
        So they may be traveling seven States, eight States away,
    and if they do get an infection at one of these derbies, they
    can spread it across the country in a moment. And what you do
    see is the birds mixing a great deal, and you do see the
    possibility of animal-to-human transmission of avian flu.
        We saw it in Southeast Asia, where sometimes the birds go
    down because they have been struck with a gaff in the lung, and
    their lung fills with blood, and the cock fighters try to rouse
    the bird to fight longer because they have got bets on the
    bird. So sometimes----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. If you could wrap up so I can get Mr.
    Shelly a question or two----
        Mr. Pacelle. Yes. Some of the cock fighters do put their
    mouth over the bird's mouth to suck the blood out of the lungs.
    There is no better pathway for transmission of the disease from
    animal to human than that.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just say you have convinced me.
        Mr. Shelly, I am very pleased that we are moving toward
    helping with respect to methamphetamine, but tell me the impact
    on youth, the Native American youth, and the importance of this
    legislation with this epidemic of methamphetamine.
        Mr. Shelly. Okay. Thank you for the question.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Shelly.
        Mr. Shelly. Thank you. Youth is really picking this up, and
    I did mention it in my testimony here, that youth is getting
    involved in this, and the young people--and percentage wise,
    and they are picking it up. It is available out there, and they
    don't know much about it. This is where the education
    prevention--that we are asking for to do that.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Gohmert?
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There are some of us that find cock fighting as a vile,
    despicable, terrible misuse of animal lives. Despite its being
    so despicable, there are some things that are reserved to the
    States when it comes to criminal laws.
        And one of the things that I was amazed about back during
    the days I was a trial judge on the district bench handling
    felonies was to see people running for U.S. Congress and
    promising people we are going to get in there and we are going
    to do something about all the violent crime, the rapes, the
    burglaries.
        And at one point I laughed to my wife and remarked that is
    ridiculous, that is not their job, that is not in accordance
    with the Constitution, because some things are reserved to the
    States, and that is everything that is not specifically
    enumerated.
        And so despite my personal feelings about cock fighting, I
    have reservations about whether or not this may be an invasion
    of States' rights, ability or right, to either legislate or
    not.
        And since I have been in Congress, I have noticed one of
    the things that all too frequently happens is groups that would
    rather lobby one time in Washington rather than 50 times in 50
    States just say hey, it would be a whole lot easier and cheaper
    if we just go lobby Washington one time, and that way we don't
    have to go to the States.
        And I really find it at least a diminution of the
    Constitution itself. That is my concern.
        Mr. Pacelle. May I address that?
        Mr. Gohmert. Yes, that would be fine. Thank you, Mr.
    Pacelle.
        Mr. Pacelle. Thank you very much.
        You know, I am sure Mr. Leber can testify to the fact that
    we have a very robust level of activities at the State level on
    this. There are probably 10 bills at the State level----
        Mr. Gohmert. I would hope so.
        Mr. Pacelle.--to strengthen the efforts there.
        This is an industry, because you don't have that many
    people in any one State who are doing this, the nature of it is
    interstate, and there is foreign commerce. There are fighting
    derbies--a world slasher derby in the Philippines. Americans go
    over and bring birds to the Philippines. There is a trade in
    these birds that is worldwide. Even dog fighting--there is a
    pit bull trade from the United States to Eastern Europe, to
    Russia, for fights, where people are wagering thousands and
    thousands of dollars.
        We are dealing just with the interstate and foreign
    commerce issue with this legislation. If New Mexico or
    Louisiana chooses to allow animal fighting, this legislation
    does not stop them. It simply stops the movement of fighting
    birds or fighting animals into the State or the movement of
    those birds or other animals from the State to other
    jurisdictions.
        So it is just the interstate and foreign commerce nexus.
        Mr. Gohmert. Anybody else care to comment?
        Mr. Leber. Yes.
        Mr. Gohmert. Yes, Mr. Leber?
        Mr. Leber. Thank you. I find it difficult to comprehend
    that if a State allows an activity that it is illegal to go
    into that State and participate in an activity, whether it be
    horse racing, buying a lottery ticket, racing dogs, or whatever
    it may be, and yet that is what this legislation does.
        It says you cannot come into our State and do what we
    specifically allow you to do because you live from another
    State.
        Mr. Pacelle. With an animal, not----
        Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Pacelle, do you care to comment again?
        Mr. Pacelle. It is simply if you move the animal with you
    in interstate commerce and bring them, so if you are in Texas
    and want to bring animals from Texas into Louisiana to fight at
    the Sunset Game Club, you are not allowed to do that under
    Federal law.
        And that has been criminalized since 2002. We are not
    creating a new Federal crime here except for the interstate
    transport of the cock fighting implements. The core criminal
    behavior is already illegal under Federal law.
        We are just upgrading the penalties to provide a deterrent,
    because we have seen that a lot of the cock fighters and dog
    fighters will stop doing the activity if there is a Federal
    felony threat.
        Mr. Gohmert. And I am glad that you are at work on these
    issues in the States. But there is another issue that sometimes
    arises. Is this just, you know, the first foot that will be
    followed by another and another?
        I have heard some representation that perhaps the Humane
    Society of the United States is against all types of hunting,
    legal or illegal, that it all should be illegal. What is your
    personal feeling about that?
        Mr. Pacelle. Well, the Humane Society, of course, has a set
    of policy positions. They are on our Web site at
    HumaneSociety.org. We are not just an animal fighting
    organization. We advance a larger ethic about humane treatment
    of animals.
        There are a couple of hunting bills that we are interested
    in, and a couple before this Committee.
        One is to stop Internet hunting, where people--a guy in
    Texas had a fenced ranch and has exotic animals to be shot for
    a fee in a guaranteed kill arrangement, and he set up a Web
    site with a motorized rifle and a camera, and you could click
    on and shoot an animal through the Internet.
        And Tom Davis introduced that bill with Collin Peterson,
    who is one of the leaders of the Sportsmen's Caucus, to try to
    curb that practice.
        We are also very concerned about these game ranches where
    animals are shot in fenced enclosures and there is no sporting
    chance for the animal, and it basically is an open-air
    abattoir.
        So we are concerned about the most abusive practices, and I
    think that would be the general take of the Humane Society on
    the wide range of issues in terms of how humans deal with
    animals. We want to curb the worst abuses.
        And you will see our legislative agenda, which again is
    published on our Web site. Almost every issue has 80 percent of
    the American public behind it. And this one, of course, is
    right up there.
        Mr. Gohmert. Any other comment, Mr. Leber?
        Mr. Leber. Yes, sir. To quote some HSUS information, ``If
    we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would''--
    Mr. Wayne Pacelle, president, HSUS. ``We want to stigmatize
    hunting. We see it as the next logical target, and we believe
    it is vulnerable''--Mr. Wayne Pacelle, president, HSUS.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, I see my time has expired. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert.
        And I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sabin, is an indigent defendant in Federal court
    charged with a misdemeanor entitled to a lawyer?
        Mr. Sabin. I believe the answer is yes, but I would have to
    check.
        Mr. Scott. In your testimony, you suggest that we change
    the law enforcement provision in the spoofing bill from an
    affirmative defense to an exception. Why is that important?
        Mr. Sabin. It had been under H.R. 5304 an exception, the
    idea being that the Government would not have to have a
    rebuttal of or put on evidence to demonstrate that law
    enforcement should be properly allowed to pursue investigatory
    or intelligence investigations to use this technique.
        So rather than putting it as an issue in the case, you
    carve it out as an exception, and therefore it is authorized
    and appropriate for law enforcement to continue its normal
    course of activity.
        Mr. Scott. In the prima facie case, would you have to prove
    that it was not a law enforcement--as an element of proof for
    violation if it is an exception, not an affirmative defense?
    Would you have to prove that it was not for the purposes of law
    enforcement in the case in chief?
        Mr. Sabin. No, but I think that was the intent in the prior
    Congress, and I don't understand why, under 1040 subsection (c)
    you would say it is a defense to a prosecution for an offense.
        Why not allow law enforcement clearly and appropriately to
    proceed with its investigations in that fashion rather than
    injecting it as an issue to become part of the case?
        Mr. Scott. You also mentioned that where we say an actual
    person that the word ``actual'' is problematic. Could you
    explain what you mean by that?
        Mr. Sabin. Yes. I think the concern that it may not cover
    companies or the Government entity, so we----
        Mr. Scott. The word ``person'' generally includes
    corporations, but by saying actual person you think that may
    complicate that assumption?
        Mr. Sabin. Yes.
        Mr. Scott. Okay.
        Mr. Pacelle, cock fighting and animal fighting is illegal
    in just about every State. In Virginia it is illegal if there
    is wagering or if there is paid admission, which covers just
    about every situation.
        Mr. Pacelle. Right.
        Mr. Scott. Can you explain why we need Federal prosecution?
        Mr. Pacelle. Well, again, we already have a statute that
    has been on the books since 1976. It was amended in 2002 to ban
    any interstate or foreign commerce in fighting animals. It is
    simply an additional tool for local, State and Federal
    Governments to crack down on what has become a national and
    international industry.
        Animal fighting is a gateway of activity to other crimes,
    and the Federal Government has a real interest in cracking down
    not only on animal fighting but the range of other criminal
    conduct that is fostered and abetted at these animal fighting
    operations.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Leber, what rights do people now have that
    will be denied if this bill passes?
        Mr. Leber. I think the next logical step from the Humane
    Society's perspective----
        Mr. Scott. Wait. Wait a minute. If this bill passes----
        Mr. Leber. Oh, I am sorry.
        Mr. Scott. If this bill passes, not what may be next.
        Mr. Leber. Okay.
        Mr. Scott. If this bill passes, what rights will be denied?
        Mr. Leber. I think the right would be perceived that if
    transportation across State lines occurs, it is automatically
    for fighting purposes, even though the gamefowl may be
    transported for show purposes, breeding purpose or exchange of
    brood stock, or things of that nature.
        And there is no way to distinguish or differentiate between
    a child going to a poultry show with their bird than someone
    going across State lines to exchange brood fowl.
        Mr. Scott. Goes the Government have the burden of proof
    beyond a reasonable doubt to show what the purpose was?
        Mr. Leber. Sir, I would assume so, but that is beyond my
    understanding.
        Mr. Scott. Well, let's get the prosecutor.
        I know that is not what you came here for, but----
        Mr. Sabin. What is the question? I will jump into this
    debate. I have tried to stay out of that.
        Mr. Scott. Nice try. [Laughter.]
        Under that bill, would not the Government have the burden
    of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to show the purpose of
    crossing State lines?
        Mr. Sabin. Yes. An essential element--in order to have
    jurisdiction, the Government has to, either under the commerce
    clause or other provisions, show an interstate nexus. And the
    Government bears the burden of each and every element and to
    the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Leber, in your written testimony, you
    suggested the bill could generate losses totaling billions of
    dollars. How does the bill create that loss?
        Mr. Leber. I think it eliminates the gamefowl industry per
    se, and consequently, if you eliminate the industry, you
    eliminate the billions of dollars in the economy.
        Mr. Scott. What can you not--well, I guess, again, what can
    you not do--what can you do now that you couldn't do if the
    bill passed?
        Mr. Leber. Say that again, sir, please.
        Mr. Scott. What can you do now that you would not be able
    to do if the bill passed?
        Mr. Leber. I don't think there is anything different, but I
    think the presumed threat of becoming a felon, whether you are
    engaged in legal or other activities, simply reduces the
    involvement in raising gamefowl.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Mr. Shelly, just let me say that we apologize for the
    oversight in the previous legislation----
        Mr. Shelly. No, no, it has been wonderful.
        Mr. Scott.--and we are going to try to correct it as soon
    as we can. So we recognize the need for the grants and how much
    good they can do, and we will try to get that fixed as soon as
    we can.
        So I appreciate your coming to testify. Do you have a final
    comment?
        Mr. Shelly. The final comment, Mr. Chairman--thank you,
    Congressmen that are here, the Committee. I really wanted to
    address Ms. Jackson Lee, the congresswoman, about the question
    she asked about what percentage of teenagers are using it.
        And I did say we have over 300,000 Navajos, and this small
    town that I mentioned in my testimony, Tuba City, with a
    population of 9,000, and 12 percent of that Tuba City teens use
    meth, about 12 percent. And could you imagine 350,000
    population now? That is 4 years ago. That is on the rise.
        And I know the meth is a problem for the teens out there.
    It is probably in the high percentage.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to answer
    that.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you very much.
        Do any of the witnesses have any final comments?
        Mr. Leber. Yes, sir. With regard to the question I was
    posed earlier with regard to considering the Humane Society as
    an animal terrorist group, I feel like that any group that
    could kill 4 million to 5 million dogs, cats, puppies every
    year--every year--could be called nothing but for those 4
    million to 5 million animals and puppies.
        They don't have an option. They don't have a choice. The
    gas chamber or whatever method is used is absolute. And that is
    just my thinking with regard to that kind of use of animals.
        If we are humane in that regard, it looks like we would use
    the money to shelter, save and take care of those animals, as
    opposed to the other.
        Mr. Pacelle. I am afraid I have to answer that. The Humane
    Society of the United States works with local Human Societies
    across the country. We don't control every local Humane Society
    in this nation.
        These organizations strive to the greatest degree to
    provide homes for animals and to encourage adoption, to spay
    and neuter animals. And if a decision is made to euthanize, it
    is a failure of society, not these local organizations who are
    striving to do their best.
        And they do it with the most humane method. They don't put
    animals in a pit and fight for 2 hours and get enjoyment from
    the activity.
        And to call an organization a terrorist organization
    because animals in society are overpopulated and regrettably
    euthanized is an extreme and ridiculous definition of
    terrorism.
        And I presume that when cock fighting was banned in
    Oklahoma there were 2.5 million fighting birds in that State.
    They are all terrorists from the gamefowl association as well
    if they are killing those animals.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        If there are no further comments and no further questions,
    I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today.
        Members may have additional written questions for the
    witnesses, which we will forward to you and ask that you answer
    as promptly as you can, to be made part of the record.
        And without objection, the hearing record will remain open
    for 1 week for submission of additional materials.
        And without objection, the Committee now stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

     Prepared Statement of the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative
          in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
        Thank you Chairman Scott. I would like to take this opportunity at
    our first subcommittee hearing to congratulate you on your new role as
    Chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee. I
    value our friendship as colleagues from neighboring Virginia districts,
    and I know this friendship will allow us to work closely together to
    implement common sense, bipartisan legislation. I look forward to
    working with you on issues of importance to the American public.
        Today, the Subcommittee will markup three bills immediately
    following the legislative hearing. In the previous Congress, the Crime
    Subcommittee eventually changed its practice to hold mark ups on a
    separate day from the legislative hearing on that same measure. Such a
    policy makes sense since the purpose of the hearing is to review the
    legislation and take testimony on possible changes or improvements. I
    understand that you, Chairman Scott, intend to continue the policy
    against same day markups, and that such scheduling will be limited to
    situations where you and I agree to such a schedule or where there is
    an emergency requiring such scheduling. I want to thank you for working
    with me on this issue and I appreciate, as always, your cooperation in
    confirming this arrangement. (Mr. Scott may ask you to yield to address
    this issue).
        Last year, Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act
    of 2005 as a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and
    Reauthorization Act. Unfortunately, Native American governments were
    unintentionally left out of two of the three grant programs implemented
    with the reauthorization: the Hot Spots Program benefitting local law
    enforcement and the Drug-Endangered Children Grant Program.
        H.R. 545, the ``Native American Meth Enforcement and Treatment Act
    of 2007,'' clarifies language regarding tribal eligibility for all
    three programs to combat the methamphetamine-associated problems within
    Native American communities. I strongly support this legislation, which
    is necessary to correct the accidental omission of Native American
    communities from participating in critical meth grant programs. H.R.
    137, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act,'' increases
    existing federal criminal penalties for illegal dogfighting and
    cockfighting. Currently, dogfighting is prohibited in all 50 states.
    Cockfighting is outlawed in most states under laws specifically
    prohibiting it or general prohibitions against animal fighting or
    animal cruelty. Under existing federal law, animal fighting is a
    misdemeanor, carrying a maximum penalty of one year incarceration.
    Although Congress in 2003 increased the criminal fines for animal
    fighting, the term of imprisonment has not been increased since its
    original enactment in 1976.
        H.R.137 creates a new animal fighting offense in title 18, and
    modifies the penalties to make it a felony offense by increasing the
    maximum penalty from one to three years imprisonment. The Act broadens
    the law to prohibit the interstate promotion of animal fighting and the
    interstate purchase, sale, delivery or transport of any animal for use
    in an animal fighting venture. I am a cosponsor of this bill, along
    with 286 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and I urge
    Members to support its passage.
        H.R. 740, which we are also discussing today, addresses an
    increasingly prevalent form of fraud known as caller ID spoofing.
    Spoofing involves using fake or misleading caller ID information to
    facilitate a fraudulent telephone call to an individual in order to
    obtain their personal information. Call recipients unwittingly divulge
    their names, addresses, social security numbers or other private
    information under the mistaken belief that the caller represents a
    bank, credit card company, or even a court of law.
        The ``PHONE Act of 2007'' imposes a fine and prison term up to five
    years for those who engage in call spoofing. This legislation will help
    to deter telephone fraud, to protect consumers from harassment, and to
    increase protection for consumers and their personally identifiable
    information from identity thieves. Further, the bill provides
    additional law enforcement tools to effectively prosecute frauds
    facilitated by spoofing. The House passed similar legislation at the
    end of the last Congress and I support its favorable adoption today.
        I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and I thank you
    Mr. Chairman for working with us on these bills and the subcommittee
    schedule.
    Prepared Statement of Phil Kiko, Esquire, Senior Adviser, Office of the
                     Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.