[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 19, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10267-H10273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H10267]]
   AMENDING TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PUNISH THE DEPICTION OF 
                             ANIMAL CRUELTY

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1887), a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
punish the depiction of animal cruelty, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1887

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

     SECTION 1. PUNISHMENT FOR DEPICTION OF ANIMAL CRUELTY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 48. Depiction of animal cruelty

       ``(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession.--Whoever knowingly 
     creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty 
     with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or 
     foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under 
     this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any 
     depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, 
     educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `depiction of animal cruelty' means any 
     visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, 
     motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or 
     sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is 
     intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or 
     killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the 
     law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession 
     takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, 
     torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State; and
       ``(2) the term `State' means each of the several States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

``48. Depiction of animal cruelty.''.

  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 within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1887, introduced by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Gallegly), would make it a crime to place in interstate commerce 
any visual depiction of animals being tortured.
  At a hearing on this bill in the Subcommittee on Crime of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, a California State prosecutor and police 
officer each described how they came to learn about the growing 
industry that deals in the depiction of animals being tortured. In most 
instances, videotapes are offered for sale that show women wearing high 
heeled shoes slowly and sadistically crushing small animals, such as 
hamsters, and in some cases even cats, dogs, and monkeys. The witnesses 
explained that these types of videos, together with other visual and 
audio depictions of similar behavior, appeal to persons with very 
specific sexual fetishes who find these depictions sexually arousing.
  They also testified that because the faces of the women inflicting 
the torture in the videos are often not depicted and there often is no 
way to ascertain when or where the depiction was made, State 
authorities have been prevented from using State cruelty-to-animals 
statutes to prosecute those who make and distribute these depictions.
  During the Subcommittee on Crime hearing, one of the witnesses played 
a short clip from one of these videos. In it a small animal was slowly 
tortured to death. And let me say to my colleagues that most of those 
in attendance had a hard time looking at it, and I do not believe in my 
entire time in Congress I have ever seen anything quite like this that 
is as repulsive as the videotape that I had to watch a portion of. And 
I doubt anyone else who had to watch it would say anything definitely. 
The clip we watched was just the beginning of the tape, which also is 
kind of a sad feature. The witnesses testified it was even more 
gruesome as the tape wore on.
  H.R. 1887 will stop the interstate sale of these videos, and perhaps 
stop some of the international sales of these videos. Because we have 
learned in that hearing is that, unfortunately, entire industries have 
sprung up appealing to these unusual sexual fetishes throughout the 
world, and the Internet is the way and the means through which these 
are procured. Of course, most of them are originating in the United 
States.
  The bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), H.R. 1887, 
would prohibit the creation, sale, or possession of a depiction of 
animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in 
interstate or foreign commerce. Depiction of animal cruelty is defined 
in the bill to mean any visual or auditory depiction, including any 
photograph, motion picture film, video recording, electronic image, or 
sound record in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, 
mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.

  The bill as amended by the subcommittee provides for an exception to 
the bill's prohibition if the material in question has serious 
religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historic, 
or artistic value. These exceptions would ensure that an entertainment 
program on Spain depicting bull fighting or a news documentary on 
elephant poachers, to state two examples, would not violate the new 
statute. Also, the bill further requires that the conduct depicted be 
illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the 
creation, sale, or possession takes place. Thus, the sale of depictions 
of legal activities, such as hunting and fishing, would not be illegal 
under this bill.
  The bill does not criminalize the mere possession of such depictions, 
only possession with the intent to transmit the depictions in 
interstate commerce for commercial gain is prohibited. The Government 
would bear the burden of proving that intent.
  I believe this bill is a necessary complement to State animal cruelty 
laws. Congress alone has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and 
this bill does just that. It regulates the commerce in these 
depictions. It does not create a new Federal crime to punish the harm 
to the animals itself, rather it leaves that to State law, where it 
properly lies. What it does do is restrict the conduct that heretofore 
has gone on unchecked by State law, the sale across State lines of 
these horrible depictions for commercial gain.
  And I can assure anyone who is listening to my comments today that 
there is nothing redeeming, socially or otherwise, about any of the 
depictions I witnessed in our hearing the other day. The little animal 
was literally pinned down on the floor as this woman took a high-heeled 
stiletto shoe, talking vulgar language to it, slowly crushing each of 
its limbs, listening to its sound on the audio, and working her way to 
the final death of that animal before, we are told, the part we did not 
see, the animal was literally crushed into the ground over a period of 
10 or 12 minutes.
  The bill was favorably reported by the Subcommittee on Crime by a 
vote of 8 to 2. The full Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported 
the bill to the House by a vote of 22 to 4. I believe it is a good 
bill, narrowly tailored to address the harm, and one that does not 
federalize State criminal laws but, instead, addresses only that 
conduct which State law does not reach, namely the interstate sale of 
the depictions of animals being tortured.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for bringing the 
matter to the attention of the committee and for his leadership on the 
bill. I certainly encourage my colleagues to support the bill. Based on 
what we witnessed during the Subcommittee on Crime hearing, this 
clearly is a bill that is needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1887 would make it a violation of Federal law to 
knowingly create, sell, or possess with intent to sell a depiction of 
animal cruelty. At

[[Page H10268]]

the subcommittee markup, we added a provision which exempted possession 
and distribution of such materials for scientific, political, 
historical, educational, artistic religious, or journalistic purposes. 
Although this narrows the application of the bill considerably, I am 
not convinced that the bill meets the provisions of the First Amendment 
to the United States Constitution which prohibits reinstructions on 
speech, including speech that most find disgusting or unpopular.
  Mr. Speaker, in U.S. v. Eichman, a 1990 case, the Supreme Court said, 
and I quote, ``If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First 
Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit expression of an 
idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or 
disagreeable.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is without question that the conduct at issue today 
is offensive and disagreeable, and it is also clear that we can 
constitutionally prohibit cruelty to animals. However, it is clear that 
we cannot prohibit the communications regarding such acts, including 
the film communications done for purely commercial gains.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Speaker, all States already have some form of animal protection 
laws which would likely prohibit the crushing of animals in a manner 
depicted in the so-called crush video films. And prohibiting the 
crushing of animals in the manner suggested in the bill raises no 
constitutional issues. But the communication through film is speech, 
which is protected by the First Amendment of the United States 
Constitution. Films of animals being crushed are communications about 
the acts depicted, not doing the acts.
  In fact, the content in these films is no different than the content 
of a closed-circuit film of actual robberies or other crimes which are 
used on the Cops on the Beat TV shows in order to compete for rates and 
advertising revenues that they bring in. In those videos, human beings 
are intentionally killed or pistol whipped by criminals, and those 
videos would not be affected by this bill.
  The Supreme Court has consistently refused to carve out new 
exceptions to the First Amendment. Although one cannot endanger the 
public by yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater and one cannot traffic 
in child pornography, speech has been restricted in precious few 
examples.
  Obscene speech is one type of speech which has been restricted. 
First, to be obscene, it has to appeal to prurient or sexually 
unhealthy and degrading interest. Second, it has to violate 
contemporary community standards which are judged on a State-by-State, 
indeed community-by-community basis, not a national basis. And third, 
when taken as a whole, it must be entirely lacking in redeeming 
literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit.
  While H.R. 1887 would apply to some obscene material, many videos 
covered by the bill are clearly not obscene.
  We have other Supreme Court cases, Mr. Speaker, which indicate that 
speech can also be restricted when there is a compelling State interest 
to do so. However, such restrictions must meet the strict scrutiny 
test, which requires that it is necessary to serve a compelling 
governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that end.
  Although it is clear that the governmental interests in protecting 
human rights may be sufficiently compelling to justify restrictions on 
rights otherwise protected by the Constitution, the question posed by 
this bill is whether protecting animals' rights counterbalances 
citizens' fundamental constitutional rights.
  It would seem from the case in 1993, City of Hialeah, that the answer 
to that question is no. In that case, the City of Hialeah enacted 
various ordinances to prevent cruelty to animals by prohibiting animal 
sacrifices which were part of the Santerian religion.
  One of the asserted bases for the ordinance was protection of 
animals. Although the district court found a compelling governmental 
interest in protecting animals, the Supreme Court invalidated those 
ordinances as an infringement on the First Amendment's free exercise of 
religion clause.
  Although the Supreme Court recognized the governmental interest in 
protecting animals from cruelty, that interest did not justify 
violating the rights of citizens to freely exercise their religion. 
Therefore, on balance, animal rights do not supersede fundamental human 
constitutional rights.
  So while the Government can and does protect animals from acts of 
cruelty, making of the films of such acts are unlikely to constitute 
compelling State interest sufficient to justify rights which are 
otherwise protected by the Constitution.
  Now, one argument to justify this as a compelling State interest is 
the suggestion of the correlation between serial killers and the 
indication that they often begin by torturing animals. Yet the 
suggestion is that the serial killers actually torture the animals 
themselves, not just watch videos. And certainly there is no indication 
that a store clerk selling videos is a danger to society. Therefore, it 
does not appear that there is a compelling State interest to violate 
the freedom of speech constitutional right. But even if there were a 
compelling State interest, it fails the strict scrutiny test because it 
is not narrowly tailored.
  Although the bill is tailored to avoid some of the more obvious First 
Amendment issues, it leaves so much of what it is purportedly aimed at 
is, in fact, uncovered that it falls into the problem encountered by 
the Hialeah case. There the ordinances prohibited the practices of the 
Santerians in a way of protecting public health but it did not prohibit 
practices generally or pursue less offensive ways to accomplish the 
goals such as requiring the same sanitation activities throughout the 
city.
  Here the bill prohibits the commercial use of videos in a way to 
prohibit the cruelty to animals but does not prohibit personal creation 
or use of the videos. The bill also exempts serious political, 
scientific, educational, historical, religious, artistical or 
journalistic uses of such films as legitimate purposes for 
disseminating them. It is also apparent the bill does not prohibit 
maiming, mutilating, wounding, or killing animals in connection with 
food preparation or for clothing preparation such as bashing heads of 
baby seals and skinning them sometimes alive and those kinds of videos 
for hunting and fishing or for pest control.
  On the other hand, the bill makes illegal depictions of activities 
that are not illegal when or where made and if those activities are 
illegal in the State where the depictions are possessed. For example, 
bullfighting may be illegal in Virginia, so possessing for sale of a 
film in Virginia depicting a bullfight in Spain would violate the act.
  Thus, as in the Hialeah case, the bill purports to prevent animal 
cruelty by stopping the creation and distribution of films but only 
when it is used for commercial purposes. A more narrowly tailored way 
to get at such cruelty would be to prosecute those who are actually 
engaged in the activities considered cruel.
  So although I commend the author of the bill, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCollum) on his efforts to write a bill which 
addresses the problems consistent with free speech, I am not convinced 
that the bill meets the strict scrutiny test for limiting speech 
because it has not established a compelling State interest, nor is it 
narrowly tailored to meet that need. I, therefore, must urge my 
colleagues to vote against the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1887, which was introduced 
by my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).
  This bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the Committee on the 
Judiciary with overwhelming votes on both sides of the aisle, will put 
a stop to the production and sale of videos that feature the crushing 
and often the killing of small, innocent animals.
  First, let us be clear as to what this legislation will not do. It 
will in no way prohibit hunting, fishing, or wildlife videos. It will 
only prevent the interstate trafficking of videos that feature people 
crushing small animals to death with their feet.
  Furthermore, this bill does not expand the legal definition of what 
is cruelty to animals. It would only outlaw

[[Page H10269]]

the selling of videos that depict the torture of animals in violation 
of existing stated laws.
  Mr. Speaker, some of society's most brutal killers first began their 
violent ways by killing and maiming small animals. By putting an end to 
these disgusting and cruel videos, we could discourage the behavior of 
these individuals before it escalates to more serious crimes directed 
not towards animals but towards people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this common-sense legislation. I 
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for introducing this 
bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on 
the Judiciary, for yielding me the time on this important matter, 
important matter only because what we are trying to do here today, at 
least those of us who oppose this legislation, is bring some common 
sense back to this body, some common sense that tells us that where we 
have improper activity or abhorrent or disgusting activity, use 
whatever legitimate and accurate characterization of this activity one 
would like, that is already illegal under either Federal and/or State 
law, common sense tells us to ask the question why are we taking up the 
time of this distinguished body, with all of the extremely important 
matters before us on the Committee on the Judiciary, before every other 
committee in this body, why are we doing this?
  Are we no longer cognizant of principles of federalism that brought 
many of us here, principles of federalism that say, only if a 
particular activity falls within the legitimate ambit of principles 
well-established of federalism as a clear Federal responsibility and, 
further, unless that activity is not already covered adequately by 
State law that results in prosecutions or can result in prosecutions, 
we should not be saddling our Federal officials, those who investigate 
and prosecute these crimes and who come before Congress year after year 
after year, and say we do not have enough resources to do the job they 
have already given us, why in heaven's name are we saying do not worry 
about that, do not do their job in some other area, do not prosecute or 
investigate cases of drug dealing, do not investigate or prosecute 
cases of trafficking in firearms, do not investigate or prosecute cases 
involving corruption, terrorism, mail fraud, arson, assault, whatever 
it is, we want you to go after animal cruelty videos.
  Mr. Speaker, every one of the 50 States of this Union already has on 
the books laws that address precisely the activity that we are seeking 
to now make a violation of Federal criminal law here today. The very 
language of this proposed legislation is based on the underlying 
activity being against State law.
  I have asked the Library of Congress and they have provided me a 
report from the CRS outlining the fact that every single one of our 50 
States already criminalizes cruelty to animals.
  Now, yes, it may very well be as Loretta Switt and others from 
Hollywood who are so offended by this, and they ought to be, it may 
very well be that prosecutors in California have a difficult job 
prosecuting these cases. If that is, in fact, the case, and I am not 
making a judgment on it, but if it is, then the remedy, Mr. Speaker, is 
not to come running to the Congress and say, oh, give us a Federal 
statute to make our job easier. The proper response, at least for those 
of us who I thought supported principles of federalism, would be, if 
they in California believe that their State laws are insufficient to 
enable them to properly investigate, prosecute, and put behind bars 
those who conduct this disgusting activity, then they have a remedy, 
change their State laws, give their prosecutors more tools that they 
might need to do this. And the same would apply for every one of the 50 
States.
  I would urge my colleagues on the other side and I asked them this 
during the debate in the Committee on the Judiciary to identify for me 
which among all of the provisions of the U.S. Criminal Code, this 
massive volume here, Mr. Speaker, they do not think are being handled 
sufficiently.
  Because if we pass this legislation telling the FBI that it now will 
have, in addition to all this other responsibility, the responsibility 
for investigating videos of cruelty to animals by women in high heels, 
then we are telling them we want them to take away their time from 
prosecuting these other provisions of the criminal law in order to go 
after women in high heels crushing animals or bugs or whatever it is.
  I am not making a judgment on whether or not that is improper 
behavior. Clearly it is. It is disgusting. It is abhorrent. But it is 
already illegal under State law.
  I would much prefer, Mr. Speaker, to tell our Department of Justice, 
and we have great difficulty getting them to properly prosecute 
existing laws with regard to violence against children involving 
firearms, for example, to say, oh, in addition to that, they are not 
doing a good job of that, but here are some more things they have to 
do. Go after these videos.
  I would urge my colleagues to just step back for a moment and 
recognize that, yes, this behavior is disgusting. A lot of behavior is 
disgusting. That does not mean, nor should it mean, that we need to 
federalize this crime where there are already, Mr. Speaker, the laws of 
the 50 States that make this illegal, there are the laws of the 50 
States against pornography, obscenity, and the Federal law.
  There is no need for this legislation. Defeat it and bring common-
sense principles of federalism back to this body.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair advise us as to the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.  Scott) has 
6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.  McCollum) 
has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr.  Gallegly), the author of the bill.
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I cannot let a couple of the statements of 
my distinguished colleague the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.  Barr) 
stand.
  Number one, the gentleman knows better. This has nothing to do with 
bugs and insects and cockroaches, things like that. This has to do with 
living animals like kittens, monkeys, hamsters, and so on and so forth.
  Furthermore, it is the prosecutors from around this country, Federal 
prosecutors as well as State prosecutors, that have made an appeal to 
us for this. And further, it is not a requirement of them to prosecute 
the cases. This statute only gives them more tools at their option to 
prosecute if they deem necessary rather than taking away from, as the 
gentleman says, maybe more important cases.

                              {time}  1715

  So I think that that argument is very invalid.
  Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to address the House 
today on H.R. 1887, a bill to prohibit the sale of depictions of animal 
cruelty.
  What do Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski have in common? They tortured or 
killed animals before killing people. Many studies have found that 
people who commit violent acts on animals will later commit violent 
acts on people.
  District Attorney Michael Bradbury of Ventura County in my home 
district of California came to me because he cannot prosecute people 
who are involved in promoting and profiting from violent acts to 
animals. The people are making and selling crush videos. These videos 
feature kittens, hamsters, birds, sometimes even monkeys and they are 
taped to the floor while women slowly torture and crush them to death. 
These videos, over 2,000 titles, sell for as much as $300 apiece.
  Federal and State prosecutors from around the country have contacted 
me to express the difficulty they have in prosecuting people for crush 
videos because the only evidence of the crime is on videotape. It is 
difficult to prove that the tape was filmed within the statute of 
limitations and it is difficult

[[Page H10270]]

to identify the person in the video. Further, the producer and 
distributor of the video, the person making the big bucks, is not 
violating any current State or Federal laws.
  H.R. 1887 was drafted very narrowly to protect the freedom of speech 
guaranteed under the first amendment. The House Committee on the 
Judiciary passed the bill with bipartisan support by a vote of 22-4.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the 
chairman of the subcommittee; his staff, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and all the 
cosponsors of the bill. I want to thank my district attorney Michael 
Bradbury for bringing this to my attention, his deputy attorney Tom 
Connors and my staff along with the Doris Day Animal League for helping 
me in my efforts to put an end to this crush video business.
  I ask my colleagues to join in supporting H.R. 1887.
  I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak in favor of H.R. 1887, 
a bill to prohibit the sale of depictions of animal cruelty.
  What do Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz (the ``Son of Sam'' murderer), and 
Ted Kaczynski have in common? They all tortured or killed animals 
before they started killing people. The FBI recently stated that 
children who torture animals should be considered ``potentially 
violent'' and this may be a factor in profiling a child as the next 
school shooter. Many studies have found that people who commit violent 
acts on animals will later commit violent acts on people. Planned, acts 
of animal cruelty is a problem that should be taken seriously.
  District Attorney Michael Bradbury of Ventura County, California, 
came to me because he cannot prosecute people who are involved in 
promoting and profiting from violent acts to animals. The people are 
making and selling ``crush videos.'' These videos feature kittens, 
hamsters, birds, and even moneys that are taped to the floor while 
women, sometimes barefooted, and sometimes in spiked heels, slowly 
torture and crush the animal to death. The videos sell for up to $300 
and more than two thousand titles are available for sale nationwide. 
People who buy the videos purchase them to satisfy their sexual foot 
fetish.
  Federal and state prosecutors from around the country have contacted 
me to express the difficulty they have in prosecuting people for crush 
videos because the only evidence of the crime is the videotape. It is 
difficult to prove that the tape was filmed within the statute of 
limitations, and it is difficult to identify the person in the video. 
Further, the producer and distributor of the video, the person making 
the big bucks, is not violating any federal or state laws. The state 
law on the books and the lack of a relevant federal law leave the 
prosecutors empty handed. The current law is insufficient to prosecute 
crush videos.
  H.R. 1887 targets the profits made from promoting illegal cruel acts 
toward animals. The bill was drafted very narrowly to protect the 
freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. In order to be 
prosecuted for this proposed law, one must first violate a state or 
federal animal cruelty law in creating a depiction of a live animal. 
Then the person must sell the video or intend to sell the video across 
state lines. The First Amendment would not protect videos that are made 
for profit and that are filming someone violating an existing law. The 
state has an interest in enforcing its existing laws. Right now, the 
laws are not only being violated, but people are making huge profits 
from promoting the violations.
  Some of the leading constitutional lawyers in the nation helped me 
draft the bill. In addition, following a hearing in the Crime 
Subcommittee, this legislation was amended to further ensure that it 
does not infringe upon the First Amendment. The bill specifically 
excludes any depiction that has serious political, scientific, 
educational, historical, artistic, religious, or journalistic value. As 
amended, the bill does not prohibit groups such as the Humane Society 
of the United States from creating an educational documentary on animal 
cruelty.
  The value of crush videos is de minimis. Crush videos would not fall 
within the specific exceptions to the bill.
  The sick crush video business must end. The cruelty to animals must 
stop. The House Committee on the Judiciary agreed that crush videos 
should not be sold and passed the bill with bipartisan support by a 
vote of 22-4. Please support H.R. 1887.
  I want to thank the Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Congressman 
Bill McCollum and his staff, Chairman Henry Hyde and Ranking Member 
John Conyers, and all of the cosponsors of the bill. I also want to 
thank District Attorney Michael Bradbury and his Deputy District 
Attorney, Tom Connors, and the Doris Day Animal League for helping me 
in my efforts to put an end to the crush video business.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. If ever there were a 
bill unnecessary, this is one. It is an example of us here in the 
Congress looking for dragons to slay. This is absolutely unnecessary. 
There is no real purpose in passing this legislation. As has been said, 
all 50 States have laws against violence and cruelty to animals. That 
should be adequate. But the way this bill is written really opens up a 
Pandora's box. It is a can of worms.
  Take, for instance, it says, ``whoever knowingly possesses a 
depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that 
depiction in interstate commerce.'' That, you can get 5 years for. How 
do you prove intention? This is subjective, purely subjective. This is 
not narrowly written, this is very broadly written. This is a first 
amendment concern to many, but it is also so unnecessary.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Ed Meese, has stated recently, 
there is just no need for more Federal laws. We do not need more 
Federal laws. We cannot even enforce the ones that we have. And 
besides, this is strictly a State matter.
  Now, if they want to use the interstate commerce clause, they should 
be reminded, up until this century at least, the interstate commerce 
clause was used in its original intent to open up trade between the 
States. It was never the excuse to regulate everything between the 
States. That is a 20th century distortion of the interstate commerce 
clause. So that is not even a real good excuse for this.
  Now, cruelty to animals, nobody is going to come and defend cruelty 
to animals. But quite frankly there will be times it will be difficult 
to define. The motivation for most cruelty to animals is because people 
are sick. This is a mental illness. We are dealing with mental illness 
here and we are going to write a Federal law against it. So if 
somebody, and it was even mentioned by the proponents of this bill, 
that people like Ted Bundy delight in this. Yes. These people are 
psychopaths. They are nuts. It is an illness. We cannot pass a law to 
deal with mental illness. I strongly object to this approach. We should 
be thinking not only about the process but of the unintended 
consequences of passing legislation like this.
  I have seen some pretty violent ads on television of killing 
cockroaches. I know that is not their intention. I went fishing one 
time and it was rather ghastly. I am not a very good fisherman nor a 
hunter. I cannot see the killing of animals. But to see the hook pulled 
up on a kingfish and have the fish thrown on the deck and the fish 
suffocate, we make movies of this. This is on television. They say this 
will not be affected. How do we know? There are hunting films on 
television. Animals are shot. Maybe people are delighting in looking at 
the cruelty or the killing of animals on television even though they 
are sporting or fishing shows.
  Yes, I agree that is not what is intended, but so often our 
legislation gets carried away and is misinterpreted. I would ask my 
colleagues not to pass this legislation. This legislation does not have 
any redeeming value whatsoever. It is well-intended in the sense that 
people object to cruelty to animals but quite frankly I have not had 
one single request from my 595,000 constituents in my district for this 
bill, and I would like to see how many others who would honestly get up 
here and say, oh, I have had dozens or hundreds or thousands of people.
  The only people that I have heard that have requested this piece of 
legislation are law enforcement officials, not the judges who have to 
deal with this, not the people in the country, not the State 
legislative bodies, not the governors, but people who may want to have 
a lot more activity to do things they are not doing well enough anyway. 
Federal law enforcement is lagging. So to put another law on the books 
which is not well written, and it is subjective in that we have to 
decide whether or not the person who possesses this material is 
intending to sell it to somebody.

[[Page H10271]]

  This bill really is something that we need to just reject, vote down. 
We do not need it. The States will take care of this. We do not need to 
be bashful and say that if we do not vote for this bill for some reason 
that we endorse the idea of animal cruelty. That is not the case. 
Nobody endorses this. I just think that the qualifications in here to 
exempt certain people like journalistic and historical and artistic, 
these categories, quite frankly, who will be the judge? It will be very 
difficult to do.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the gentleman from Texas. 
I do not want to have to wait till my district attorney calls me. 
Recently in Arkansas, Andrew Golden, a little 11-year-old boy, shot 10 
of his classmates. He had a history of animal cruelty. Luke Woodham in 
Mississippi, a little boy who opened fire on his fellow students, he 
had a history of animal cruelty. The sponsor of this bill mentioned Ted 
Bundy, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly). He 
mentioned the Unabomber. Let us add to that list. How about ``Son of 
Sam'' David Berkowitz and Jeffrey Dahmer? What do all these people have 
in common? They have a history of abusing animals, of animal cruelty.
  What does that matter to what we are discussing here today? 
Psychologists tell us that when we view these activities, they 
desensitize our young people to a behavior which appears to be a 
gateway to violent acts of indiscriminate, cold-blooded murder. Now, we 
might not have much of a compelling state interest in bugs and beetles 
and hamsters but we do in our children, and we do not want any activity 
which desensitizes our children, which might be a gateway to more 
violent acts.
  Yes, these people are mentally ill but people are not always mentally 
ill. There are things that cause them to be mentally ill, and it is 
clear to some of us that these videos can push people, they can 
desensitize people. Why are we so upset? Not because it is disgusting 
as disgusting as it is, but because it is dangerous. What are we trying 
to protect? We are trying to protect the first amendment, but we are 
also trying to protect our children. The Supreme Court has already 
ruled on several occasions that animal cruelty is not protected, and 
this statute is necessary to stop the interstate sale of videos which 
show this animal cruelty and which get in the hands of our children.
  Why do we need such a law? Somebody said we have got all the laws on 
the books. Let me address that last argument. In these videos, all we 
see is the feet and the hands of these people crushing these small 
animals. Our law enforcement officers cannot identify these people. In 
every State it is against the law for them to do it, but we cannot 
identify these people. But we can identify who is selling them. They 
are selling them for $100 and $50 and $30 and there are over 2,000 of 
them.
  It is time to close this loophole and protect our children. This is 
about children, not about beetles.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I do not need 2 minutes. I would like to 
concur with what we just heard. The gentleman from Alabama said it 
right on target. It is not about animals, it is about people. It is not 
about freedom of speech, it is not about federalism, it is about 
people. It is certainly not about needing to do it because we do need 
to. It is about a sick society we are trying to make better. This is an 
obvious way to do it. We cannot prosecute these people without this 
law. It will continue. It will grow. It will just fester and fester and 
fester. It is just gross and it is sick and we need to put an end to 
it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H.R. 1887 which my friend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) introduced in order to prevent 
and punish those who create videos which depict violent acts of animal 
cruelty in violation of State laws.
  My experience in working on domestic violence issues alerted me to 
the connection between animal abuse and violent behavior. Often, women 
in domestic violence shelters report that their abusers victimize the 
family pet in order to control their behavior or the children's 
behavior. Abusers often threaten to harm or inflict pain to the animal 
to demonstrate control within the home. Not surprisingly, children 
raised in such homes often learned that cruelty to animals is 
acceptable behavior, certainly when they are watching such videos. In 
turn, this behavior becomes the first step in repeating a legacy of 
violence and the conditioning of referring to violence in demonstration 
of power or frustration. Raising awareness about the link between 
animal cruelty and domestic violence, child abuse and other forms of 
violent behavior I think is an important step in trying to prevent such 
violence. This bill would address one source of animal cruelty by 
punishing those who create, sell or possess depictions of animal 
cruelty with the intention of earning commercial gain from that 
depiction.
  The legislation reflects a growing awareness, a growing concern, that 
violence perpetrated on animals is unacceptable and often escalates to 
violence against humans. FBI Special agent Allan Brantly stated last 
year that, quote, ``animal violence does not occur in a vacuum. It is 
highly predictive in identifying children being abused and cases of 
spousal abuse.'' He continues to say, ``In many cases we have seen 
examples whereby enjoyment from killing animals is a rehearsal for 
targeting humans.'' I would say the same of viewing this.
  In a survey of domestic violence shelters in every State, 85 percent 
of the women reported situations where their abuser abused or 
threatened abuse on the family pet. Increasingly, the intentional 
harming or killing of pets by adults or children is recognized as an 
indicator of violence in the home. It is essential that our society 
recognizes this link and punishes acts of animal cruelty. I urge 
support of H.R. 1887. I hope its passage will increase awareness of the 
serious nature of animal cruelty.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the committee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, some things are just plain 
wrong. I am gratified that most of this Congress did not have the 
unpleasant experience of viewing what those of us on the Subcommittee 
on Crime had the opportunity to view. This was the physical and actual 
crushing, as they are called, crush videos, of kittens and hamsters and 
birds taped to the floor while women with either bare feet or high 
heels are crushing these animals for either the sexual pleasure of 
those who are viewing these videos or something else.
  There is something to the value of the Federal Government making a 
moral statement that this is abhorrent and intolerable behavior.
  I think it is important to delineate why we are passing such 
legislation on the Federal level. First of all, it deals with 
interstate commerce. Secondarily, it deals with the creation, the 
selling or possessing of such. We realize that mental illness comes 
into play, but the idea that there is profiteering because these videos 
are being sold and potentially our children are having access to seeing 
them on the Internet makes it, for me, something that should not be 
protected by the First Amendment.
  I am gratified by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum), and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Gallegly) for his leadership on this bill that takes away the potential 
of interfering with religion or journalistic issues.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an abhorrent act. This is someone engaging in 
producing such videos to attract an audience and to sell it. Our law 
enforcement has said we can do nothing with State cruelty laws, because 
we cannot see the stomping person, but we can find the person who 
produced it.
  I would hope that America would stand for something better than that,

[[Page H10272]]

that we would stand against this kind of reckless and random violence 
so that our children will understand the moral values of the sanctity 
of life. This is unnecessary, this is profiteering, and it is 
unnecessary to have these kinds of acts.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply add that we outlaw it and outlaw it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to support H.R. 1887, a bill to amend 
Title 18, United States Code, to punish the depiction of animal 
cruelty. Recently, we heard compelling testimony about the heinous 
practice of crush videos. After hearing these insightful witnesses, I 
am more certain than ever that legislative action is needed.
  A depraved video market has emerged which features women crushing 
small animals to death with their feet. Generally, these ``Crush 
Videos'' depict kittens, hamsters, and birds taped to the floor while 
women, sometimes, barefooted, sometimes in spiked heels, step on the 
animals until they die. The videos sell for $30 to $100 and more than 
3,000 titles are available for sale nationwide.
  The acts of animal cruelty featured in the video are illegal under 
many State laws. However, it is difficult to prosecute these acts under 
State animal cruelty laws because it is difficult to identify the 
individual in the video. This is primarily because only the women's leg 
is shown in the video. Further, it is difficult to determine when the 
act depicted in the video occurred for purposes of proving it was done 
within the statute of limitation.
  H.R. 1887 was introduced by Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) to 
address this problem. The bill would make it violation of Federal law 
to knowingly create, sell, or possess a depiction of animal cruelty 
with the intent of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign 
commerce for commercial gain. The term ``depiction of animal cruelty'' 
is defined to mean a depiction in which a living animal is 
intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, a wounded or killed, if such 
conduct is illegal under Federal or State law. The bill further 
provides for a fine and/or imprisonment of not more than 5 years.
  I believe that H.R. 1887 is a good measure and would go a long way in 
eradicating this blight on civilized society. Having said that, I am 
concerned that H.R. 1887 may violate the first amendment right to free 
speech. Representative McCollum offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute during Judiciary Committee markup that provided for an 
exception to its provisions where otherwise prohibited depictions are 
for serious political, religious, artistic, scientific, newsworthy or 
educational purposes. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that, 
for example, an entertainment program on bullfighting in Spain would 
not violate the new statute where it is possesses or distributed in a 
State where bullfighting is prohibited.
  I am of the opinion that the McCollum amendment addresses the first 
amendment concerns. Specifically, the legislative language in H.R. 1887 
in its amended form is distinguishable from the statutes struck down in 
cases such as Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 
U.S. 520 (1993), striking down a city ordinance that prohibited ritual 
animal sacrifice but that allowed other forms of animal slaughter, and 
Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991), striking 
down New York's ``Son of Sam'' prohibition against criminals profiting 
from the sale of stories about their crimes.
  The court in Simon & Schuster stated that ``[a] statute is 
presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a 
financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech.'' 
The case goes on to state that ``The Son of Sam laws establishes a 
financial disincentive to create or publish works with a particular 
content.'' In order to justify such differential treatment, ``the State 
must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state 
interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.''
  H.R. 1887 addresses the compelling State interest of preventing the 
crime of animal cruelty. Additionally, H.R. 1887 narrowly tailored to 
the knowing depiction of specifically outlined illegal conduct, and 
that conduct already determined by state statute to be animal abuse, 
with the intent to place that depiction in interstate commerce. I 
believe that the legislation is therefore sufficiently narrowly drawn 
to only prevent depictions of criminal conduct.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure to stop 
this barbaric activity.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair how much time 
each side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers but myself to 
close.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this would mean somehow 
that the Kentucky Derby would become a Federal crime as the jockey 
whips the horse; I do not know if one of the biggest times in the low 
country of South Carolina would now suddenly become a Federal crime as 
one literally throws live crabs into hot boiling water to steam crabs. 
However, what I do know is that the Federal Government cannot keep up 
with what is already on its plate, and the Justice Department is 
already very busy trying to prosecute what is before it. The idea of 
adding another Federal crime to again, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) has suggested earlier, this is something that I am not hearing 
from my constituents back home and it does not make sense to me.
  There has been a lot of talk about the children, how are we going to 
protect the children. I can assure my colleagues, my kids will not be 
checking out from Blockbuster Video crush videos, and the 
responsibility, if we are serious about this as Republicans on who is 
going to control which videos my kids or your kids are watching, I 
think comes back to the home.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 40 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gallegly), the author.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
with all due respect to my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford), and he is my good friend, when he said he does not know 
whether it would be in effect for a jockey whipping a horse at the 
Kentucky Derby or crustaceans or the like, I can assure him that if he 
had read the bill a little more carefully, he would find that that 
absolutely is not a part of this legislation.
  As it relates to adding another statute, it does not add another 
statute as it relates to the issue of animal cruelty. It only gives the 
prosecutors one more tool to prosecute existing law.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  If I might in closing, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), 
the author, is quite right. I just want to amplify this point. This 
bill in no way affects insects or bugs or crabs. First of all, we have 
to have animal cruelty under State law before this applies.
  Secondly, there is no Federalization of State law involved here. No 
animal cruelty law is brought into the Federal scheme of things, only 
the interstate sale we are dealing with of these horrible products. 
This is the same type of thing we have when we deal with the drug issue 
about the intent to sell and the sales that occur across State lines. 
Of course those could be just relegated to the States to enforce these 
laws, but now we have the Internet, we have interstate sales, we have 
the invidious, horrible things that happen to children when they see 
these depictions, just as when they are involved in the receiving end 
of the drugs.
  So I think this is a very important statute and not federalizing 
anything else we are proposing.
  Last but not least, this is clearly constitutional, because the 
bottom line of it is there is no redeeming value whatsoever. It does 
not rise to that level at all to be protected as free speech when we 
are talking about torturing an animal under the purposes here with all 
the exemptions we have for journalistic and religious and other 
reasons.
  So I encourage in the strongest of terms the adoption of this bill 
today. We need to protect our kids. This is about children and it is 
about cruelty, and it is about teaching the lessons of morality, but it 
is most importantly about giving law enforcement the tools to make this 
really effective in the world of the Internet we live in today and the 
interstate commerce where people are making videos today, taking 
hamsters and kittens and literally torturing them to death for 10 or 15 
or 20 minutes, slowly, to get the voice over it for sexual fetishes to 
sell around the world.
  I urge the adoption of this bill.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1887--legislation that will put a stop to the outrageous production and 
sale of so-called ``crush videos.'' These disturbing videos show women 
crushing small

[[Page H10273]]

animals to death with their feet. Kittens, hamsters, guinea pigs, 
birds, small dogs and other animals are taped to the floor while a 
woman, sometimes barefooted and sometimes in spiked heels, step on the 
animal until it dies. These vicious videos sell for as much as $100 
and, as incredible as it seems, there are over three thousand titles 
now for sale.
  Mr. Speaker, numerous studies have demonstrated that the individuals 
who commit violent acts against animals are also the same individuals 
who commit violent acts against humans. In the last Congress I 
introduced legislation which dealt with that problem. The Congressional 
Friends of Animals, of which I am the Democratic Co-Chair, held a 
briefing last year to explore the link between animal abuse and 
domestic violence. Based on the information we received at that 
briefing, I introduced a resolution which recognized this link and 
called on Federal and local law enforcement officials to treat animal 
cruelty seriously ``because such cruelty is a crime in its own right in 
all 50 states, and because it is a reliable indicator of the potential 
for domestic and other forms of violence against humans.'' My 
resolution urged Federal agencies to focus greater research in order to 
understand the link between animal cruelty and violent crime.
  It is no surprise that individuals who brutalize animals are very 
often guilty of committing similar crimes against people. Violence 
against animals in many cases precedes and frequently coexists with 
spouse abuse, elder abuse, as well as murder and assault. A 1997 survey 
found that over 85 percent of women in shelters, who suffered violence 
in the home, also reported violence directed against pets or other 
animals. The American Psychiatric Association considers animal abuse as 
one of the diagnostic criteria of a conduct disorder. Brutality against 
animals is not normal behavior, and we must make that clear, as this 
legislation does, that this is a crime and it will be punished.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1887 is a narrowly drafted bill tailored to 
prohibit the creation, sale or possession with the intent to sell or 
distribute the depiction of animal cruelty in interstate commerce for 
commercial gain. It does not preempt state laws on animal cruelty, but 
rather strengthens the reach of state laws in the state where the 
cruelty occurred. The bill provides our nation's law enforcement 
officials with the tool they need in order to prosecute the vicious and 
vile individuals who produce these ``crush videos.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important step to stop this abhorrent 
practice. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. 
Gallegly's bill H.R. 1887. I would like to congratulate the Crime 
Subcommittee for producing this excellent legislation and I look 
forward to working with them on my own bill to end the cruel treatment 
of elephants in circuses.
  H.R. 1887 will put a stop to the production and sale of ``crush 
videos'' which feature women crushing small animals to death with their 
feet. Kittens, hamsters, and birds are taped to the floor while the 
women, sometimes barefooted, and sometimes in spiked heels, step on the 
animal until it dies. The videos sell for $30-$100 and more than three 
thousand titles are available for sale nationwide.
  The acts of animal cruelty featured in animal ``crush videos'' are 
illegal under state law. However, it is difficult to prosecute these 
acts under state animal cruelty laws. First, a District Attorney must 
identify the individual in the video. This is a difficult task given 
the fact that most of the time, only the actress' legs are shown. 
Second it is difficult to prove that the act featured in the video 
occurred within the statute of limitations. Third, local animal cruelty 
laws do not prohibit the production, sale, or possession of the video. 
There are no applicable federal laws.
  H.R. 1887 is narrowly tailored to prohibit the creation, sale or 
possession with the intent to sell a depiction of animal cruelty in 
interstate commerce for commercial gain. The bill does not preempt 
state laws on animal cruelty. Rather, it incorporates the animal 
cruelty law of the state where the offense occurs.
  The bill would provide prosecutors with the tool they need to 
prosecute people for making ``crush videos.'' By targeting the profits 
made from this disgusting video, we will put a stop to its production.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no place for this kind of cruelty in the 
entertainment industry. I am pleased to support Mr. Gallegly's bill, 
H.R. 1887, and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  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. 
1887, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________