[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E656]]
          ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, March 26, 2007

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I, along with Mr. Blumenauer 
and Mr. Bartlett, have been trying to federally criminalize the brutal, 
inhumane practice of animal fighting for the past several Congresses.
  A few years ago, Congress enacted legislation to tighten Federal laws 
with regard to animal fighting; however, this law created some 
loopholes that allowed the barbaric practices of animal fighting to 
thrive nationwide, in spite of bans in virtually every State. We left 
in place weak penalties that have proven ineffective. Misdemeanor 
penalties simply don't provide a meaningful deterrent. We've heard from 
U.S. Attorneys that they are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases 
with just a misdemeanor penalty. Those involved in animal fighting 
ventures consider misdemeanor penalties a ``slap on the wrist'' or 
merely a ``cost of doing business.''
  In recent years, we've seen a marked rise in the frequency of animal 
fighting busts in communities across the country. Local police and 
sheriffs are increasingly concerned about animal fighting, not only 
because of the animal cruelty involved, but also because of the other 
crimes that often go hand-in-hand, including illegal gambling, drug 
trafficking, and acts of human violence. In the last 6 months, every 
reported bust of an animal fight also led to additional arrests for at 
least one of these criminal activities.
  Furthermore, there is an inherent danger for the children of animal 
fighters to be close to these animals. Children are often brought to 
these gruesome spectacles. Some dog fighters steal pets to use as bait 
for training their dogs; some allow trained fighting dogs to roam 
neighborhoods and endanger the public.
  There is the additional concern that cockfighters spread diseases 
that jeopardize poultry flocks and even public health. We in California 
experienced this first-hand, when cockfighters spread exotic Newcastle 
disease, which was so devastating to many of our poultry producers in 
2002 and 2003. That outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to 
eradicate, and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions more in 
lost export markets.
  Cockfighting has been identified as the major contributor of the 
spread of avian flu throughout Thailand and other parts of Asia, where 
the strain originated. At least nine people who contracted avian flu 
and died from it reportedly contracted it from fighting birds. Among 
those who are reported to have died from avian influenza as a result of 
exposure through cockfighting, include 4-year-old, 6-year-old, and 18-
year-old boys in Thailand and a 6-year-old girl in Vietnam. 
Fortunately, bird flu has not yet jumped the species barrier in this 
country, but we ought to do all we can to minimize the risk.
  Opponents of H.R. 137 have said this bill should be blocked because 
it will drive them underground, increasing the public health risks. 
That's a ludicrous argument. They're already underground (it's illegal 
in 49 States and various localities in the remaining State, Louisiana). 
They're coaching each other, as documented in chat rooms and other 
communications that have been intercepted, to hide their birds to avoid 
detection in the event of an outbreak. We're not talking about stellar 
citizens who are planning to contact health officials to ``do their 
part'' in stemming a pandemic. We'll be much better off cracking down 
on illegal cockfighting than allowing this high-risk industry to 
continue thriving and hoping they'll work with the government 
cooperatively to stem the threat of disease.
  We need to help State and local law enforcement officials who have 
requested this strengthening of Federal laws to rid animal fighting 
from communities that do not want it. This legislation makes violations 
of federal animal fighting law a felony punishable by up to 3 years in 
prison, makes it a felony to transport an animal across State or 
international borders for the purpose of animal fighting, and prohibits 
the interstate and foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for 
use in cockfighting.
  This bill simply promotes meaningful enforcement of current Federal 
law that bars interstate and foreign movement of animals for fighting 
purposes, including both dog fighting and cockfighting, by upgrading 
current misdemeanor penalties to a felony level. The bill is explicitly 
limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects States' 
rights in the 2 States where cockfighting is allowed, yet further 
protects States' rights in the other 48 States where weak Federal law 
compromises the ability to keep animal fighting outside their borders.

  I also wanted to clarify for the Record that subsection (c) of 
section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, which is about interstate 
instrumentalities and commercial speech, prohibits the websites and the 
magazines where fighting animals are advertised for sale. These 
publications are commercial speech, and also clearly promote animal 
fighting. They advertise fighting animals and weapons for sale in 
interstate commerce. For example, over the last 12 months, there have 
been over 1,600 pages worth of advertisements for illegal interstate 
commercial transactions in the two main cockfighting magazines.
  Subsection (d) is meant to limit subsection (c) with respect to the 
magazines and other commercial speech promoting cockfights in States 
where that is legal. It acts as a limitation upon subsection (c), but, 
as under current law, only if the effect of that promotion is limited 
to cockfights in the one State where cockfighting is still legal. So as 
a practical matter, (d) does not limit enforcement of (c) against the 
cockfighting magazines and website 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 
cockfighting is illegal.
  Finally, I also want to say that these provisions in current law, 
which are mirrored in H.R. 137, pose no problem in terms of the First 
Amendment. Animal fighting magazines and websites aren't protected by 
the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has been clear on this score--
there is no First Amendment protection for commercial speech where the 
underlying commercial transaction is lawfully prohibited, as is the 
case here. Subsection (c) is clearly constitutional. It is narrowly 
tailored with this in mind. First Amendment consideration is built 
right into the language. It only prohibits ``commercial speech''--like 
the cockfighting magazines with all of their advertisements for 
contraband. These animal fighting 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. They can't cloak it in the First 
Amendment just by throwing a little bit of non-commercial speech in 
there either, and the Supreme Court has been clear on that as well.

  This is the perfect example of a bipartisan bill. The bill I 
cosponsored in the last Congress, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act 
of 2006, had 324 cosponsors and was passed through the Senate by 
unanimous consent. Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Bartlett, and I rounded up 300 
Democrat and Republican co-sponsors in just a few weeks.
  I want to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. 
Bartlett for their work on this legislation. We have all been working 
on this legislation for quite some time. I also want to commend Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Smith, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Forbes for recognizing the 
importance of this issue and thank them for moving H.R. 137 through the 
Judiciary Committee so quickly. I also want to thank Mr. Peterson of 
the Agriculture Committee for his assistance on this matter. Finally, I 
want to thank my 300+ colleagues who cosponsored H.R. 137. Without your 
help, we would not have been able to show the amount of support this 
Congress has for ending this deplorable practice and all of the 
destructive behavior associated with it.

                          ____________________