[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 21832-21837]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the Senate bill (S. 3880) to provide the Department of Justice the 
necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals 
committing animal enterprise terror.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 3880

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

[[Page 21833]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Animal Enterprise Terrorism 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO ANIMAL ENTERPRISES 
                   AND THREATS OF DEATH AND SERIOUS BODILY INJURY 
                   TO ASSOCIATED PERSONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 43 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal 
       enterprises

       ``(a) Offense.--Whoever travels in interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any 
     facility of interstate or foreign commerce--
       ``(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the 
     operations of an animal enterprise; and
       ``(2) in connection with such purpose--
       ``(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real 
     or personal property (including animals or records) used by 
     an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a 
     person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, 
     or transactions with an animal enterprise;
       ``(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of 
     the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a 
     member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of 
     that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person 
     by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, 
     property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or 
     intimidation; or
       ``(C) conspires or attempts to do so;
     shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Penalties.--The punishment for a violation of section 
     (a) or an attempt or conspiracy to violate subsection (a) 
     shall be--
       ``(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 
     1 year, or both, if the offense does not instill in another 
     the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and--
       ``(A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily 
     injury; or
       ``(B) the offense results in economic damage that does not 
     exceed $10,000;
       ``(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 
     than 5 years, or both, if no bodily injury occurs and--
       ``(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding 
     $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000; or
       ``(B) the offense instills in another the reasonable fear 
     of serious bodily injury or death;
       ``(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 
     than 10 years, or both, if--
       ``(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding 
     $100,000; or
       ``(B) the offense results in substantial bodily injury to 
     another individual;
       ``(4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 
     than 20 years, or both, if--
       ``(A) the offense results in serious bodily injury to 
     another individual; or
       ``(B) the offense results in economic damage exceeding 
     $1,000,000; and
       ``(5) imprisonment for life or for any terms of years, a 
     fine under this title, or both, if the offense results in 
     death of another individual.
       ``(c) Restitution.--An order of restitution under section 
     3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of 
     this section may also include restitution--
       ``(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any 
     experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a 
     result of the offense;
       ``(2) for the loss of food production or farm income 
     reasonably attributable to the offense; and
       ``(3) for any other economic damage, including any losses 
     or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting from the 
     offense.
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `animal enterprise' means--
       ``(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses or 
     sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber 
     production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
       ``(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, 
     furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal 
     event; or
       ``(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance 
     agricultural arts and sciences;
       ``(2) the term `course of conduct' means a pattern of 
     conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuity 
     of purpose;
       ``(3) the term `economic damage'--
       ``(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged 
     property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or 
     invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased 
     costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from 
     threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, 
     harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity 
     on account of that person's or entity's connection to, 
     relationship with, or transactions with the animal 
     enterprise; but
       ``(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption 
     (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, 
     governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of 
     information about an animal enterprise;
       ``(4) the term `serious bodily injury' means--
       ``(A) injury posing a substantial risk of death;
       ``(B) extreme physical pain;
       ``(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
       ``(D) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a 
     bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
       ``(5) the term `substantial bodily injury' means--
       ``(A) deep cuts and serious burns or abrasions;
       ``(B) short-term or nonobvious disfigurement;
       ``(C) fractured or dislocated bones, or torn members of the 
     body;
       ``(D) significant physical pain;
       ``(E) illness;
       ``(F) short-term loss or impairment of the function of a 
     bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or
       ``(G) any other significant injury to the body.
       ``(e) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed--
       ``(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including 
     peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected 
     from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution;
       ``(2) to create new remedies for interference with 
     activities protected by the free speech or free exercise 
     clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, 
     regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any 
     existing legal remedies for such interference; or
       ``(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil 
     remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this 
     action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide 
     such penalties or remedies.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 43 in 
     the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

       ``43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal 
           enterprises.''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3880 currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3880, the Animal Enterprise 
Terrorism Act.
  In recent years, some animal rights activist groups have employed 
violence and intimidation against enterprises that use or sell animals 
or animal products for food, agriculture, research testing or 
entertainment uses. In 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was 
enacted to provide additional authority to prosecute extremists whose 
attacks create damages or research losses of at least $10,000.
  However, the last several years have seen an increase in the number 
and the severity of criminal acts and intimidation against those 
engaged in animal enterprises. These groups have attacked not only 
employees of companies conducting research, but also those with any 
remote link to such research or activities. This has included employees 
of banks, underwriters, insurance companies, investors, university 
research facilities, and even the New York Stock Exchange.
  Victims have experienced threatening letters, e-mails and phone 
calls, repeated organized protests at their homes and the blanketing of 
their neighborhoods with defamatory literature. Some of the more 
violent acts by these groups include arson, pouring acid on cars, 
mailing razor blades, and defacing victims' homes.
  Many of the actions that the groups have engaged in are not addressed 
by the current animal enterprise terrorism statute, 18 United States 
Code 43. This legislation would expand the reach of Federal criminal 
law to specifically address the use of force, violence or threats 
against not only animal enterprise organizations, but also those who do 
business with them. S. 3880 would make it a Federal crime to 
intentionally damage the property of a person or entity having a 
connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal 
enterprise. The bill

[[Page 21834]]

would also make it a criminal act to intentionally place a person or 
family member in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury 
because of their relationship with an animal enterprise.
  Additionally, the legislation expands the definition of economic 
damage to include loss of property, the costs incurred because of a 
lost experiment or lost profits. It also includes a definition of the 
term ``economic disruption'' to mean losses or increased costs 
resulting from threats, acts of violence, property damage, trespass, 
harassment, or intimidation against a person or entity because of their 
relationship with an animal enterprise. This does not include a lawful 
boycott.
  Finally, an amendment to S. 3880 incorporated during floor 
consideration in the other body addresses concerns that were raised 
about the bill's potential impact on lawful protests. S. 3880 clarifies 
that nothing in this bill shall be construed to prohibit any expressive 
conduct protected by the first amendment, nor shall it criminalize 
nonviolent activities designed to change public policy or private 
conduct.
  Before closing, I would like to recognize the efforts of my colleague 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, who introduced a similar measure in this 
body and has helped raise awareness of this important issue. I believe 
this bill can help protect law-abiding citizens who are engaged in 
lawful activities such as research, farming sales, or manufacturing 
that involves animals or animal products.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 3880, so we may send this 
important legislation to the President for his signature.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 3880 is a companion bill to H.R. 4239, the Animal 
Enterprise Terrorism Act. It reflects a compromise bill arrived at 
after considerable effort of a bipartisan group involving both House 
and Senate Judiciary Committee staff over several months.
  From hearings in the House and from other reports, we have learned 
that current Federal law designed to protect animal enterprises have 
been proven to be reasonably effective in protecting animal 
enterprises. However, serious gaps and loopholes have been identified 
in current law with respect to protecting employees and associates of 
animal enterprises. Present law protects employees of an animal 
enterprise, but we have found that employees, board members and family 
members of businesses and nonprofits affiliated with or doing business 
with such enterprises are complaining that they are now being stalked, 
harassed, intimidated or threatened, with some individuals even being 
physically assaulted, and had their homes, businesses or cars 
vandalized. Since the Animal Enterprise Terrorism law was enacted in 
1992, there have been some 1,100 complaints of such incidents, with 
property losses reported of being more than $120 million. Those 
complaining include farmers, scientists, biomedical and biotechnology 
industries, research universities, teaching hospitals, financial 
institutions, magazines, newspapers and other advertising groups and 
others who are viewed as assisting or enabling targeted animal 
enterprises.
  The evidence is that in many instances extremist elements among the 
animal rights groups are taking advantage of the fact that the animal 
enterprise laws do not cover affiliates and associates by using 
threats, harassment, intimidation and fear and other extreme tactics to 
pressure them into severing their activities with such enterprises.
  S. 3880 is designed to cover these gaps or loopholes by providing to 
employees, businesses and associates of animal enterprises similar 
protections to those already covered. In other words, the bill prevents 
a person from doing indirectly to an animal enterprise what they are 
prohibited to do directly.
  Now, citizens engaging in legitimate animal enterprise activities and 
anyone associated with them are entitled to be protected from criminal 
acts and to be able to go about their daily activities free from 
threats to their person or property and that of their family and 
associates. State laws are generally good at providing those 
protections. However, the interstate nature of the planning and 
execution of the criminal harassment tactics used by some individuals 
or groups skilled at exploiting gaps or weaknesses in the laws have 
made it difficult for States to get at problems effectively. That is 
why this bill is deemed necessary.
  While we must protect those engaged in animal enterprises, we must 
also protect the right of those engaged in first amendment freedoms of 
expression regarding such enterprises. It goes without saying that 
first amendment freedoms of expression cannot be defeated by statute. 
However, to reassure anyone concerned with the intent of this 
legislation, we have added in the bill assurances that it is not 
intended as a restraint on freedoms of expression such as lawful 
boycotting, picketing or otherwise engaging in lawful advocacy for 
animals.
  In addition, we also wanted to recognize that there are some who 
conscientiously believe that it is their duty to peacefully protest the 
operation of animal enterprises to the extent of engaging in civil 
disobedience. If a group's intention were to stage a sit-in or lie-down 
or to block traffic to a targeted facility, they certainly run the risk 
of arrest for whatever traffic, trespass or other laws they may be 
breaking. But they should not be held more accountable for business 
losses due to causes such as delivery trucks being delayed any more 
than a boycott or protest against any other business.
  To violate the provision of the bill, one must travel or otherwise 
engage in interstate activity with the intent to cause damage or loss 
to an animal enterprise. While the losses of profits, lab experiments 
or other intangible losses are included, it must be proved that such 
losses were specifically intended for the law to be applied. If there 
is no damage or economic loss, or damage or loss is less than $10,000, 
the offense is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
  This bill does not satisfy everyone, but it does represent a 
reasonable compromise in protecting employees and associates of animal 
enterprises while avoiding violation of first amendment freedoms.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the 
bill before us, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which is the 
Senate version of legislation I introduced earlier this Congress. The 
bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate by unanimous consent 
amends the existing animal enterprise terrorism statute which has been 
law since 1992. It extends existing protections for animal enterprises 
to individuals, businesses and agencies including farmers, scientists, 
biomedical and biotechnical industries, research universities, teaching 
hospitals, financial institutions and others who have associations with 
animal enterprise.
  This legislation is in response to rising incidents of violence and 
threats against these entities as a way to adversely impact animal 
enterprises without directly violating the existing Animal Enterprise 
Terrorism Act. The bill before us clarifies that it is a crime to 
damage or interfere with animal enterprise and expands parameters in 
existing law to cover threats, harassment and other illegal activities 
against those who are connected with such enterprises, not just the 
enterprises themselves. The law increases criminal penalties based on 
the level of violence or property loss, while specifically exempting 
from its coverage all first amendment protected activities.
  Between January of 1990 and June of 2004, extremist movements such as 
the Animal Liberation Front, Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty, and the 
Environmental Liberation Front committed more than 1,100 acts of 
terrorism, causing more than $120 million in damage. Animal rights 
extremists advance their cause through direct action, which includes 
death threats, vandalism, animal releases and bombings. Their actions 
are calculated to

[[Page 21835]]

aggressively intimidate and harass those identified as targets.
  The FBI considers these extremist groups among its most serious 
domestic threats. Current Federal law including the Animal Enterprise 
Protection act is inadequate to address the threats and violence 
committed by animal rights extremists.
  In my own State of Wisconsin, mink farmers and biomedical researchers 
have experienced their own share of intimidation, harassment and 
vandalism at the hands of animal rights extremists. Farmers have had 
their properties raided, causing thousands of dollars of damage.
  Scientists around the State have received, in the mail or at their 
home, razor blades with letters stating that they were laced with the 
AIDS virus. Personal information such as home addresses, phone numbers, 
and photographs of researchers have been posted on extremist Web sites. 
Many of these same scientists report death threats and home visits by 
animal rights extremists who, through their terrorism, have a goal of 
driving the scientists out of their research, research which has and 
will continue to improve human health and quality of life.

                              {time}  1500

  The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security held a hearing on the act in May of this year. At the hearing, 
a primate researcher from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 
testified about the harassment and intimidation which she has 
experienced.
  She has even considered leaving the Parkinson's research field and 
fears others may do so in the current environment. This statement has 
proven to be true. Just this past August, a researcher at UCLA halted 
his primate research because of the repeated harassments by animal 
rights extremists. The bill will provide Federal authorities with the 
necessary tools to help prevent and better investigate and prosecute 
ecoterror cases.
  This legislation is widely supported by those in agriculture, 
biomedical and biotechnology industries, as well as many research 
universities, teaching hospitals and other research institutes. 
Enactment of this legislation will enhance the ability of law 
enforcement and the Justice Department to protect law-abiding American 
citizens from violence and the threat of violence posed by animal 
rights extremists.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, Subcommittee Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Conyers, 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Robert Scott, Senator Inhofe and Senator 
Feinstein for their support in moving this bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I also have a letter from Advance Publications that 
details some of the violent and threatening acts made against editors 
of their magazines, such as Vogue, because of the fashion industry's 
use of fur or animal products that would be covered under this 
legislation.

                                   Advance Publications, Inc.,

                             Staten Island, NY, November 13, 2006.
     Re Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act S. 3880

     Hon. Thomas E. Petri,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Petri: I write to support the passage of 
     the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 3880. Advance 
     Publications is engaged throughout the United States in the 
     publication of newspapers, business journals, and consumer 
     magazines and websites on a variety of topics. Advance 
     Publications is also affiliated with Bright House Networks, 
     an operator of cable television systems in numerous states. 
     For your information, a representative listing of Advance's 
     publications and of the locations of Bright House Networks' 
     cable systems is attached.
       Our interest in this bill arises from the unfortunate fact 
     that at least one of our publications, Vogue magazine, and 
     its editor, Anna Wintour, have been repeatedly targeted by 
     animal activists who disagree with Vogue magazine's decision 
     to publish editorial content about, and carry advertising 
     for, fur and other animal products, and its support for 
     fashion designers who may use fur. These opponents are, of 
     course, entitled to express their views, but their opposition 
     often takes the form of physical attacks on Ms. Wintour and 
     her home, threats and efforts to harm her, stalking her on 
     the streets and at industry events, and even at a memorial 
     service for her deceased father, and at least one actual 
     physical invasion of Vogue's offices (which put numerous 
     persons in fear, behind locked doors), as well as other 
     attempts to do so.
       While fortunately Ms. Wintour has not yet sustained any 
     serious lasting injuries, she has suffered physical pain from 
     those attacks (for example, from a ``flour bomb'' thrown in 
     her eyes, the effects of which hurt and hampered her for 
     days) and has often with good cause been concerned for her 
     safety and the safety of her family. Indeed, when Ms. Wintour 
     is appearing in public as part of her job (for example, at 
     fashion shows or fashion industry events), we now feel we 
     must provide guards, sometimes armed, to protect her. On a 
     number of occasions we are convinced, had it not been for the 
     presence of these unusual safeguards, Ms. Wintour could have 
     been injured by the efforts to make physical attacks on her. 
     We are of course concerned that these extreme activists will 
     step up the severity of their attacks because their efforts 
     have so far been unsuccessful at silencing Vogue.
       We understand that among the arguments made in opposition 
     to the AETA are alleged concerns that it may infringe on 
     First Amendment rights. Our business is wholly dependent upon 
     respect for First Amendment rights, and we are second to none 
     in our defense of such rights. We have closely examined the 
     AETA with this in mind, and we do not agree that the AETA, 
     especially with the ``rules of construction'' that were added 
     to it, in any way would inhibit or punish free speech or 
     other First Amendment rights.
       If anything, the opposite is the case. The real chilling 
     effect on First Amendment rights comes about when editors and 
     others are put in fear of physical, violent attack because of 
     what they publish or say. It is the violent animal activists 
     who diminish free speech and free press by threatening and 
     attacking editors, publications, and telecasters.
       We strongly believe that enactment of S. 3880 will serve to 
     deter many persons from engaging in these and worse violent 
     and threatening acts in the future. In addition, the new law 
     will give prosecutors a powerful new tool to go after those 
     who continue to commit these acts.
       Please let me know if we can provide any further 
     information that would be helpful to you.
           Very truly yours,
                                               S.I. Newhouse, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



  ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS INC.--Representative Newspapers and Magazines 
               (published by subsidiaries and affiliates)

                          I. Daily Newspapers

       Alabama: The Birmingham News, The Huntsville Times, Mobile 
     Register.
       Louisiana: The Times-Picayune. (New Orleans).
       Massachusetts: The Union News/Sunday Republican 
     (Springfield).
       Michigan: The Ann Arbor News, The Bay City Times, The Flint 
     Journal, The Grand Rapids Press, Jackson Citizen Patriot, 
     Kalamazoo Gazette, The Muskegon Chronicle, The Saginaw News.
       Mississippi: Mississippi Press (Pascagoula).
       New Jersey: Bridgeton News, The Jersey Journal (Jersey 
     City), The Star Ledger (Newark), Today's Sunbeam (Salem), The 
     Times of Trenton, Gloucester County Times, (Woodbury).
       New York: Staten Island Advance, The Post-Standard 
     (Syracuse).
       Ohio: Plain Dealer (Cleveland).
       Oregon: The Oregonian (Portland).
       Pennsylvania: The Express-Times (Easton), The Patroit-News 
     (Harrisburg).

                         II. Consumer Magazines

       The Conde Nast Publications: Allure, Architectural Digest, 
     Bon Appetit, Bride's, Conde Nast Traveler, Details, Domino, 
     Elegant Bride, Glamour, Golf Digest, Golf for Women, Gourmet, 
     GQ, House & Garden, Jane, Lucky, Modern Bride, Self, Teen 
     Vogue, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Vogue, W, Wired.
       Parade Publications: Parade.

                           III. Cable Systems

       Bright House Networks: Bakersfield, CA; Birmingham, AL; 
     Central Florida; Detroit Suburbs, MI; Indianapolis, IN; Tampa 
     Bay, FL.

                         IV. Business Journals

       American City Business Journals Inc. Group:
       Alabama: Birmingham Business Journal.
       Arizona: The Business Journal Phoenix.
       California: East Bay Business Times (Oakland), Sacramento 
     Business Journal, San Francisco Business Times, Silicon 
     Valley/San Jose Business Journal.
       Colorado: Denver Business Journal.
       District of Columbia: Washington Business Journal.
       Florida: The Business Journal Serving Jacksonville and 
     Northeast Florida, South Florida Business Journal (Miami), 
     Orlando Business Journal, The Business Journal Tampa Bay.
       Georgia: Atlanta Business Chronicle.
       Hawaii: Pacific Business News (Honolulu).
       Kansas: The Business Journal Serving Metropolitan Kansas 
     City, Wichita Business Journal.

[[Page 21836]]

       Kentucky: Business First: Greater Louisville's Definitive 
     Source of Local Business.
       Massachusetts: Boston Business Journal.
       Maryland: Baltimore Business Journal.
       Minnesota: City Business: The Business Journal 
     (Minneapolis/St. Paul).
       Missouri: St. Louis Business Journal.
       New Mexico: New Mexico Business Weekly (Albuquerque).
       New York: The Business Review Serving New York's Capital 
     Region (Albany), Business First: Western New York's Business 
     Newspaper (Buffalo).
       North Carolina: The Business Journal Serving Charlotte and 
     the Metropolitan Area, The Business Journal Serving the 
     Greater Triad Area (Greensboro Winston-Salem), The Business 
     Journal Serving The Triangle's Business Communities 
     (Raleigh).
       Ohio: Business Courier Serving the Cincinnati-Northern 
     Kentucky Region, Columbus Business First (Columbia), Dayton 
     Business Journal.
       Oregon: Business Journal Portland.
       Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Business Journal, Pittsburgh 
     Business Times.
       Tennessee: Memphis Business Journal, Nashville Business 
     Journal.
       Texas: Austin Business Journal, Dallas Business Journal, 
     Houston Business Journal, San Antonio Business Journal.
       Washington: Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle).
       Wisconsin: The Business Journal Serving Milwaukee.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Would the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin yield 
for a question?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Certainly.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Sensenbrenner, as I am reading through this act and 
looking at the types of injuries that would occur to people, it occurs 
to me that there are existing Federal statutes which come into play 
with respect to inflicting bodily harm on individuals. Why are we 
creating a specific classification here?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Please.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The reason the bill is before us is that the 
current statute is drafted too narrowly and does not deal with threats 
by animal rights extremists in inflicting bodily harm, for example, 
against the publisher of Vogue magazine, because they put ads in 
depicting people wearing furs.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Well, reclaiming my time, I certainly stand with every 
Member of this House in defense of the rights of individuals to be free 
of bodily harm or injury under all and any circumstances. I think it 
would be a little bit easier for some of us to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I certainly will yield.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The reason the bill is before us is that the 
current statute does not extend the reach of the Federal criminal law 
to those who do business with animal enterprise organizations, and the 
bill will make it a specific crime to intentionally damage the property 
of a person or entity having the connection to or relationship with or 
transactions with an animal enterprise. That is not in the current law 
now.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman for 
pointing that out. However, I must say that the reach of the Federal 
law includes any place which does Federal research, and all these 
universities are involved in research projects as universities who are 
supporting this bill.
  I cannot see why we need to have a specific law with this regard. I 
mean, just as we need to protect peoples' right to conduct their work 
without fear of assault, so too this Congress has yet to address some 
fundamental ethical principles with respect to animals. How should 
animals be treated humanely? This is a debate that hasn't come here.
  There are some specific principles with respect to humane treatment 
of animals. My concern about this bill is that it could have a chilling 
effect on people who, the law says, well, their first amendment rights 
are protected. But the law also is written in such a way as to have a 
chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of 
protest, and so for that reason, I can't support this. I think that it 
would be important for this Congress to look at the claims of people 
who are sincere advocates of animal rights.
  I am not talking about people who would threaten anyone with death 
because they don't agree with them, but there are individuals who love 
animals, who don't want to see animals hurt, who have a point and a 
right to speak out. I think for that reason, this bill has not yet 
reached its maturity.
  I think I understand what the sponsors of this bill are trying to do, 
but I don't think that the end that it is going to, you are hoping to 
achieve, that you are going to reach, because unless this Congress 
makes a clear statement about ethical principles with respect to 
animals, and how we treat animals, how are animals treated in research, 
these are really serious questions that millions and millions of 
Americans care about.
  So I understand the intent here. But I just think that you have got 
to be very careful about painting everyone with the broad brush of 
terrorism who might have a legitimate objection to a type of research 
or treatment of animals that is not humane. So, again, I wanted to 
express this note of caution about this legislation, but 
notwithstanding that there are specific statements about protection of 
the first amendment. This bill is written in such a way as to have a 
chilling effect on the exercise of peoples' first amendment rights.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 11 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my distinguished colleague from Ohio 
hasn't read the bill, so I will read it for him. At the end of page 7 
in the Senate-passed bill, there is a subsection (e) called ``rules of 
construction,'' which says, in part: nothing in this section shall be 
construed, one, to prohibit any expressive conduct, including peaceful 
picketing or other peaceful demonstration, protected from legal 
prohibition by the first amendment to the Constitution.
  Two, to create new remedies for interference with activities 
protected by the free speech or free exercise clause of the first 
amendment to the Constitution regardless of the point of view expressed 
or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference.
  That means that if somebody wishes to peacefully protest research on 
animals, they can do so, as the statute, with the amendment that was 
adopted on the floor in the other body, specifically prohibits a 
prosecution for that.
  Now, let's look at what the people this bill has been designed to go 
after have been saying:
  ``I don't think you would have to kill too many researchers. I think 
that for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save 1 million, 2 
million or 10 million nonhuman lives.'' Animal Liberation Press Officer 
Jerry Vlasak at the 2003 National Animal Rights Conference in Los 
Angeles.
  Second: ``Arson property destruction, burglary and theft are 
`acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause.'' That quote was 
from Alex Pacheco, who is the director of PETA.
  Third: ``I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the 
animals out or burn them down.'' That is Ingrid Newkirk, president of 
PETA at the National Animal Rights Convention `97, June 27, 1997.
  ``Get arrested. Destroy the property of those who torture animals. 
Liberate those animals interned in the hellholes our society 
tolerates.'' That is Jerry Vlasak of the Animal Defense League again on 
an Internet post of June 21, 1996.
  ``We have found that civil disobedience and direct action has been 
powerful in generating massive attention in our communities . . . and 
has been very effective in traumatizing our targets.'' J.P. Goodwin, 
Committee to Abolish the Fur Trade at the National Animal Rights 
Convention in Los Angeles June 27, 1997.
  Or: ``In a war you have to take up arms, and people will get killed, 
and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under 
cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on 
their doorsteps. It is a

[[Page 21837]]

war, and there is no other way you can stop vivisectors.'' Tim Daley, 
British Animal Liberation Front leader.
  Finally, another one from Jerry Vlasak: ``If they won't stop when you 
ask them nicely, they don't stop when you demonstrate to them what they 
are doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means 
are necessary.''
  This bill is designed to criminalize whatever means are necessary 
outside the Constitution.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman. To calm the gentleman's 
concerns, I have read the bill, and I underlined the sections that I 
expressed concern about. I am concerned about, as you are, anyone who 
wants to commit violence against anyone. Remember, I am the author of 
the bill to create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. I share your 
concern about violence. I am suggesting that carving out a special 
section of law here has a chilling effect.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, again, I will reread page 7, 
lines 10 through 21 of the bill that was passed by the other body that 
says nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any 
expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or other peaceful 
demonstration protected from legal prohibition by the first amendment 
to the Constitution.
  Two, to create new remedies for interference with activities 
protected by the free speech or free exercise clause of the first 
amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view 
expressed or to limit any existing legal remedies for such 
interference, unquote.
  Now, what this section says is that nothing in the bill, absolutely 
nothing in the bill shall be construed to restrict what I have just 
read. This bill should pass. We should reject the red herrings that we 
are hearing from the gentleman from Ohio and other opponents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Again, I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin for his 
commitment to protecting people from harm. I would like to read the 
next paragraph that he didn't get to, because it raises a question 
about why this bill is necessary: nothing in this section shall be 
construed, number 3, to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil 
remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action.
  So what is this all about? This bill, in effect, does provide 
exclusive criminal penalties for a certain type of conduct, and yet the 
drafting of this bill makes section 3, under rules of construction, 
totally contradictory. This says there aren't any exclusive penalties, 
but the whole of the bill maintains and establishes exclusive 
penalties. So this is why bringing up a bill like this under 
suspension, no matter how well intentioned it may be, is problematic.
  This bill has an inherent flaw that I am pointing out. In addition, 
when that flaw is held up against the constitutional mandate to protect 
freedom of speech, what we have done here is we have crippled free 
expression.
  I am not and never have been in favor of anyone using a cloak of free 
speech to commit violence. The Supreme Court Justice said, your right 
to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. No one has the right to 
yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. We have heard those kinds of 
admonitions.
  On the other hand, the chairman's recitation of the statements of 
animal rights activists, statements that I, myself, would disagree 
with, those statements, in and of themselves, are constitutionally 
protected speech.

                              {time}  1515

  Yet under this bill they suddenly find themselves shifting into an 
area of doubt, which goes back to my initial claim that this bill was 
written to have a chilling effect upon a specific type of protest.
  Again, I am not for anyone abusing their rights by damaging another 
person's property or person, but I am for protecting the first 
amendment and not creating a special class of violations for a specific 
type of protest.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I would just like to sum up that on October 30 the American Civil 
Liberties Union sent a letter to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), my ranking member, and myself, not opposing this legislation. 
They did ask for minor changes, but they did not express one concern 
about constitutionally protected first amendment rights being infringed 
upon or jeopardized in any way by this bill.
  Now, if there ever was an organization that really goes all the way 
on one side in interpreting the first amendment as liberally as it can, 
it is the American Civil Liberties Union. My friend from Ohio, whom I 
have a great respect for, is even outside the definition of the first 
amendment that the ACLU has eloquently advanced in the halls of this 
Capitol for decades and will do so for decades to come.
  This is a good bill. I think that all of the fears that the gentleman 
from Ohio has placed on the record are ill-founded by practically 
everybody who has looked through this bill, including the ACLU. All I 
need to do is go back to the quotes that I cited a couple of minutes 
ago to show why this bill is vitally necessary.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns with S. 
3880, The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
  I believe that individuals and groups cannot resort to intimidation, 
vandalism or violence in the advancement of a cause. Protests must be 
lawful and disagreements respected. But, this bill, as drafted, could 
criminalize lawful and constitutionally protected activists.
  This bill criminalizes conduct that ``intentionally damages or causes 
the loss of any real or personal property,'' however, the bill fails to 
define what ``real or personal property'' means. As a result, 
legitimate advocacy--such as a boycott, protest, or mail campaign--that 
causes an animal enterprise to merely lose profits could be 
criminalized under S. 3880.
  It also fails to adequately define the term ``animal enterprise.'' 
Nothing in the current definition requires that an enterprise be 
lawful. Therefore, investigations into unlawful animal enterprises, 
such as animal fighting organizations or illegal puppy mills, could be 
deterred as employees, citizens, and legitimate animal activists may be 
afraid to cooperate or provide information to law enforcement agencies 
for fear of prosecution under the terms of this bill.
  I am a strong supporter of research, but I also believe that animal 
rights need to be vigilantly enforced. In order to achieve that goal, I 
have been working with the Humane Society on amendments to the Animal 
Rights Act, which is the law that governs the humane care, handling, 
treatment and transportation of animals in laboratories and dealers who 
sell animals to laboratories and animal exhibitors. My bill would 
provide two keys changes to this law. First, it doubles the fine for 
violations (from $5,000 to $10,000) and increases the number of annual 
inspections at laboratories.
  I will be introducing this measure when the House comes back for the 
110th Congress, and I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in 
providing these additional animal protections.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 3880.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds of those voting having 
responded in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the Senate 
bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________