[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S1157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 345. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to remove the 
limitation that permits interstate movement of live birds, for the 
purpose of fighting, to States in which animal fighting is lawful; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                    amendment to animal welfare act

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the 
Animal Welfare Act to remove the limitation that permits interstate 
movement of live birds for the purpose of fighting to States in which 
animal fighting is lawful.
  Currently, the Animal Welfare Act makes it unlawful for any person to 
knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in any animal fighting venture 
to which the animal was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. This 
means that if an animal crosses state lines and then fights in a state 
where cockfighting is not legal, that is a crime. However, the law 
further states, ``the activities prohibited by such subsections shall 
be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only 
if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in violation 
of the laws thereof.'' This means that the law applies to all animals 
involved in all types of fighting--except for birds being transported 
for cockfighting purposes to a state where cockfighting is still legal. 
Because of the loophole, law enforcement officers have a more difficult 
time prosecuting under their state cockfighting bans.
  As introduced this legislation will close the loophole on 
cockfighting, and prohibit interstate movement of birds for the purpose 
of fighting from states where cockfighting is illegal to states where 
cockfighting is legal. This legislation will clarify that possession of 
fighting birds in any of the 47 states would then be illegal, as 
shipping them out for cockfighting purposes would be illegal.
  I believe that my colleague from states where cockfighting is illegal 
will benefit from this change because it will make law enforcement 
easier. I also believe that my colleagues from states or territories 
where cockfighting is currently legal should not oppose this change as 
it merely confines cockfighting to within that state's borders.
                                 ______