[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9831-H9833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1791) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide 
penalties for harming animals used in Federal law enforcement, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1791

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Law Enforcement 
     Animal Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. HARMING ANIMALS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 65 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1368. Harming animals used in law enforcement

       ``(a) Whoever willfully and maliciously harms any police 
     animal, or attempts to conspires to do so, shall be fined 
     under this title and imprisoned not more than one year. If 
     the offense permanently disables or disfigures the animal, or 
     causes serious bodily injury or the death of the animal, the 
     maximum term of imprisonment shall be 10 years.
       ``(b) In this section, the term `police animal' means a dog 
     or horse employed by a Federal agency (whether in the 
     executive, legislative, or judicial branch) for the principal 
     purpose of aiding in the detection of criminal activity, 
     enforcement of laws, or apprehension of criminal 
     offenders.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1368. Harming animals used in law enforcement.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 
1791, the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act of 1999 was 
introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and passed both 
the Subcommittee on Crime and the full Committee on the Judiciary by 
voice votes. This bill proposes to add a new section to the Federal 
Criminal Code that would make it a crime to willfully and maliciously 
harm any police animal or attempt to conspire or attempt or conspire to 
do so. The bill defines police animal as a dog or horse employed by a 
Federal agency for the principle purpose of detecting criminal 
activity, enforcing the laws or apprehending criminal offenders.
  Under current law, harming an animal used by the Federal Government 
for law enforcement purposes can only be punished under the statute 
that punishes damage to government property. The statute imposes 
punishment based on the value of the damage done in monetary terms. 
Under that statute a criminal who kills a police dog might receive only 
a misdemeanor sentence due to the low monetary value of the dog; but, 
as we all know, the government spends a considerable amount of time and 
money to train these animals. And the government employees who use 
these dogs during the course of their law enforcement work often form a 
close bond with them, and so their work can suffer when the animal they 
work with each day is harmed.
  In many cases these animals have prevented harm to citizens and even 
saved the lives of children, and so it is appropriate that we punish 
criminal acts towards these animals more harshly than we punish damage 
done to inanimate government property. Under the bill, the maximum 
punishment that could be imposed for harming a police animal is 1 year 
in prison. If the offense permanently disables or disfigures the animal 
or results in the serious bodily injury or death of the animal, the 
maximum punishment that can be imposed increases to 10 years in 
prisonment.
  I support the bill. I believe the bill strikes the right balance. I 
thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for his leadership in 
bringing this issue to the attention of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Under current law, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has indicated, 
damage from an animal owned by the Federal Government is punishable as 
destruction of Federal property. More specifically, willful harm to an 
animal owned by the Federal Government whose damage or injury is valued 
at less than a thousand dollars and results in a 1-year maximum 
imprisonment if the damage exceeds the thousand dollars, the maximum 
punishment is 10 years.
  One problem with the provision is that police dogs rarely have a 
technical value which exceeds a thousand dollars, so no matter how 
vicious or cruel the offense, under current law the felony provisions 
cannot be invoked. H.R. 1791, the Federal Law Enforcement Animal 
Protection Act of 1999, would make it a crime to willfully harm any 
police animal or attempt to do so. The maximum punishment would be 1 
year imprisonment unless that harm inflicted disables or disfigures the 
animal, in which case the maximum penalty would increase to 10 years.
  At full committee markup, the amendments were offered to specify that 
we are talking about an act done out of malice to the animal as opposed 
to simply responding to an attack by the animal and to establish a 
clear line between the felony injury and the misdemeanor. The 
amendments were accepted and were incorporated in the bill as we are 
now considering it.

[[Page H9832]]

  With those changes, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1791.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), the author of this bill.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for his help and assistance in 
moving this legislation forward.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a simple question. Is it right that Federal law 
enforcement animals, dogs and horses, have no more protection under the 
law than a computer or a government desk? Is it right that if one maims 
or kills a drug sniffing dog that they are held no more accountable 
than if they smash a chair?
  Well, under current law that is true. It is exactly the case, and our 
federal law enforcement animals, both dogs and horses, are afforded no 
more protection under the law than a piece of furniture. Today these 
highly-trained animals are covered under the same statutes that deal 
with the destruction of government property. While this is a tool, the 
problem with the destruction of government property statute is that it 
is very hard to prosecute in cases where a dog or horse is injured or 
assaulted but not killed. Additionally, the current statute does not 
include any mandatory jail time for those who would injure or kill 
these valuable animals.
  Our legislation cosponsored with my friend, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), H.R. 1791, the Federal Law Enforcement Animal 
Protection Act which was drafted in cooperative effort with United 
States Border Patrol, United States Customs Service, United States Park 
Police, and other agencies as well as the Humane Society of the United 
States will address these problems. H.R. 1791 will use the same fine 
structure as the current destruction of government property statute but 
will add two sections to current law, one for assaults on police 
animals and one for disablement, disfigurement or death of the animal.
  For the lesser assault violation, offenders will be subject for a 
fine of up to $1,000 with mandatory jail time of up to 1 year. For the 
more serious offense of death or disfigurement, violators will be 
subject to a fine in excess of $1,000 with mandatory jail time ranging 
from 1 to 10 years.
  All federal law enforcement animals and all three branches of 
government will be covered by H.R. 1791 from the horses used in law 
enforcement here in Washington on the mall or at the Grand Canyon to 
agricultural inspection canines and drug-sniffing dogs used by the 
Customs Service and Border Patrol. These are highly trained animals and 
they are often a human officer's first line of defense when fighting 
crime. Federal canines, Federal police dogs cost the taxpayers up to 
$20,000 to train, up to $3500 to purchase and over a thousand dollars a 
year to feed and keep healthy every year. Park police tells me that it 
costs them almost $2,500 a year also to keep their horses maintained 
and healthy as well.
  To illustrate the value of these animals who are a human officer's 
first line of defense in fighting drugs and other crimes, let me give 
these statistics:
  In 1998 alone, 164 canine teams of the Border Patrol apprehended over 
32,000 illegal aliens, uncovered over 4 tons of cocaine, 150 tons of 
marijuana, and over $2 million in illegal drug moneys. Customs Service 
canines have had similar success with 627 canine teams serving over 75 
locations nationwide including most of our international airports and 
port cities. Customs Service has canine teams stationed at O'Hare 
Airport, my home State of Illinois, and it has also come to my 
attention that the Eleventh Congressional District which I have the 
privilege of representing is a source where federal law enforcement 
agencies go to get canines from local breeders in my home State of 
Illinois.
  Mr. Speaker, just take a moment and listen to the people who know 
firsthand the value of these animals. Russ Hess, Executive Director of 
the United States Police Canine Association wrote me back in May, and I 
quote, the increase in assault on law enforcement animals is at an all 
time high. In 1998, we had eight dogs killed in the line of duty. The 
passage of H.R. 1791 will increase the penalty for injuring or killing 
these valuable animals.
  Wayne Pacelle, of the Humane Society of the United States, writes 
quote, Officers often spend more hours of the day with their police 
animals than with family. As the first line of defense for an officer, 
police animals daily put themselves in dangerous positions on behalf of 
their officer and ultimately our communities as a whole.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not ground breaking legislation. In fact, we 
here in the Congress at the Federal level are behind the eight ball. 
Already 27 States have similar laws on the books to protect their local 
and State law enforcement animals particularly police dogs. 
Fortunately, attacks on our federal law enforcement animals are not 
widespread; but, unfortunately, they are on the rise. In fact, just 
last week my office received a call from the United States Park Police 
because one of their dogs, one of their canines, was injured by a 
suspect attempting to flee arrest.
  Passage of H.R. 1791 sends a strong message to the thugs who will 
think of causing harm to our law enforcement animals. Let us make it 
clear. Someone hits or kills a law enforcement animal, they go to jail 
just as if they hit any other law federal enforcement officer.
  Mr. Speaker, this is good bipartisan legislation with a wide spectrum 
of support. I particularly want to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) 
who both serve on the Committee on the Judiciary and helped move this 
legislation along. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) as well as the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) and their staffs for their quick action on H.R. 1791.
  I also want to thank the assistance of director Carl Newcombe, the 
Customs Service Canine Center; associate chief, Bill Carter; and Manny 
Flores of the United States Border Patrol; Wayne Pacelle of the Humane 
Society; Russ Hess, United States Police Canine Association; and the 
officers of the Park Police and the U.S. Capitol Police who have helped 
with this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, our federal law enforcement has asked for this tool. I 
ask that this House answer their call and pass H.R. 1791 today. Please 
vote to hold accountable those who would maim, wound, or kill a police 
dog or police horse, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and a cosponsor of the legislation.
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I first want to begin by thanking my dear 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). He put together a 
wonderful bill to help protect Federal law enforcement animals, invited 
me to get on right away, and we worked together with our Subcommittee 
on Crime chair, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and our 
ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the entire 
committee to move this piece of legislation forward in a bipartisan 
manner.

                              {time}  1445

  Last week, we did the Patients' Bill of Rights in a bipartisan 
manner. This week we are going to do the Federal Law Enforcement Animal 
Protection Act in a bipartisan manner. Who knows what is next? 
Hopefully, this is the start of something good.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1791, the Federal Law 
Enforcement Animal Protection Act. Most people think of those who 
protect us in law enforcement as dedicated men and women who put their 
lives on the line daily, make innumerable sacrifices, take enormous 
risks, put their families and their lives in jeopardy, and that is 
true. They represent the thin, blue line that separates civilized 
society from anarchists and criminals; and we have to do all in our 
power to give law enforcement people the tools, the resources, and the 
support that they need to do their job.

[[Page H9833]]

  But there are other living creatures who assist us in our law 
enforcement endeavors, and they are the dogs and the horses who work 
with our law enforcement personnel to sniff out drugs, to apprehend the 
bad guys who are fleeing the scene, and to otherwise keep order in our 
society.
  Mr. Speaker, I spoke this morning at a high school in Wallington, New 
Jersey, and among the many other things we talked about, I told them I 
was coming today to work with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) 
and my other colleagues to pass this Federal Law Enforcement Animal 
Protection Act to protect those dogs and Federal police dogs and horses 
who are intentionally injured or killed by criminals. And they said, 
gee, is that not a law already? And I said, well, no, it is not. It is 
the law in several States in the United States, but it has never been 
the law of the land, the Federal law.
  So I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and others for 
bringing this matter to our attention, allowing us to work to put this 
matter finally to rest, to protect those brave police animals who do so 
much for our society.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not just the cost of the animals, which is 
significant in a tight budget; there are tight budgets of the Federal 
level, State, county and local, and we know that there is a significant 
investment of thousands of dollars in the purchase and the training of 
police dogs and police horses. It is also the time and the energy of 
the humans who have to train them, care for them, and oversee their 
well-being, as well as lead them in the course of their daily work.
  But beyond the mere costs, we can also, I think, recognize that these 
are the lives of animals. And so while this is a bill for law 
enforcement, to give law enforcement the tools, protect their resources 
that these animals certainly are, it is also to recognize that these 
are living creatures that we want to protect, not just like a desk or a 
chair that a criminal would destroy to flee a crime or to obstruct a 
pursuit of law enforcement men and women who are following him or her, 
but these are police animals who we want to protect as well.
  So this law would give the discretion to a judge to impose a fine of 
up to $1,000 and the discretion to impose some kind of jail time if the 
animal was disabled or died, and that that was the intention of the 
perpetrator, to injure or disable or kill the animal. The offender 
would be subject to a fine not in excess of $1,000 and will be 
imprisoned for up to 10 years in the discretion of the judge.
  Again, this is a law that was a long time in coming, and certainly 
very necessary. We live in a very dangerous, hostile world with lots of 
problems facing the United States of America. We have lots of problems 
here at home, and we need to deal with them as well. Last week was the 
Patient's Bill of Rights, and now the Federal Law Enforcement Animal 
Protection Act. Hopefully, we will get together in a bipartisan fashion 
to do who knows, maybe even to pass a budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1791, and I thank my colleagues 
for their support as well, and I urge the entire House to do the same.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1791, 
the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act. This is a good bill 
because it enables us to convict criminals for harming police animals. 
As part of their job, police animals risk their lives side-by-side with 
their human partners in law enforcement. These animals patrol our 
national parks, our national borders, our airports, and even our United 
States Capitol is guarded by 30 K-9 units.
  Police officers depend on these animals to do their job and 
therefore, it is critical that we protect them. The U.S. Border Patrol 
uses 164 K-9 Teams, which in 1998 alone detected over 4 tons of 
cocaine, 150 tons of marijuana and over $2 million in drug money. 
Unfortunately, last year 8 K-9 dogs were killed and many more sustained 
injuries from attacks while on the job. Mr. Weller's bill would 
appropriately penalize this misconduct.
  Under current Federal law, Federal K-9s and horses are only protected 
by the U.S. statutes that govern destruction of government property. 
Current law places fines of up to $1,000 if the act is under $1,000 
with the option of jail for up to 1 year. If the damage exceeds $1,000, 
then the fine would be in excess of $1,000 with the option of jail for 
up to 10 years.
  The Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act makes it a Federal 
crime to willfully harm any police animal, or to attempt to conspire to 
do so. This would include simple assaults, bites, kicks, punches, and 
plots to injure animals. The penalty would be a fine up to $1,000 and 
mandatory jail for up to 1 year. The bill also recognizes the important 
law enforcement function these animals perform, the cost of training to 
the government, and the bond between handler and animal.
  Twenty-seven States have passed similar legislation. The bill passed 
the Judiciary Committee by voice vote with 25 bipartisan cosponsors. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Weller's bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1791, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________