[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7640-7646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 137) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 137

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition 
     Enforcement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITIONS.

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

     ``Sec. 49. Enforcement of animal fighting prohibitions

       ``Whoever violates subsection (a), (b), (c), or (e) of 
     section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act shall be fined under 
     this title, imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, 
     for each violation.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such 
     chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 48 the following:

``49. Enforcement of animal fighting prohibitions.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.

       Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``interstate 
     instrumentality'' and inserting ``instrumentality of 
     interstate commerce for commercial speech'';
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``such subsections'' and 
     inserting ``such subsection'';
       (3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly 
     sell, buy, transport, or deliver in interstate or foreign 
     commerce a knife, a gaff, or any other sharp instrument 
     attached, or designed or intended to be attached, to the leg 
     of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture.'';
       (4) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or animals, such as 
     waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) the term `instrumentality of interstate commerce' 
     means any written, wire, radio, television or other form of 
     communication in, or using a facility of, interstate 
     commerce;''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) The criminal penalties for violations of subsection 
     (a), (b), (c), or (e) are provided in section 49 of title 18, 
     United States Code.''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 137 is a bipartisan effort by the Judiciary 
Committee, led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) as the 
chief sponsor and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) as the 
lead Democratic sponsor. Both have worked long and hard on this issue. 
I would also like to express my appreciation to Chairman Conyers, 
Ranking Member Smith, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Forbes for their 
leadership and support in moving this matter forward, and also the 
former chairman of the committee, Mr. Coble, who is with us today.
  The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 addresses the 
growing problem of staged animal fighting in this country. It increases 
the penalties under the current Federal law for transporting animals in 
interstate commerce for the purpose of fighting and for interstate and 
foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting.
  Specifically, H.R. 137 makes violations of the law a felony 
punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Currently, these offenses are 
limited to misdemeanor treatment with the possibility of a fine and up 
to 1 year of imprisonment. Most States make all staged animal fighting 
illegal. Just one State currently allows cockfighting to occur legally.
  The transport of game birds for the purpose of animal fighting and 
the implements of cockfighting are already prohibited by Federal law, 
though the current law only allows, as I have indicated, the 
misdemeanor treatment. In 1976 Congress amended title 7, U.S. Code, 
section 2156, the Animal Welfare Act, to make it illegal to knowingly 
sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive a dog or other animal in 
interstate or foreign commerce for the purposes of participation in an 
animal fighting venture or knowingly sponsoring or exhibiting an animal 
in a fighting venture if any animal in the venture was moved in 
interstate or foreign commerce. Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act 
contained a loophole, however, that allowed shipments of birds across 
State lines for fighting purposes if the destination State allowed 
cockfighting.
  While Congress did amend section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act to 
close this loophole in 2002, the penalty section and other provisions 
of the act have not been updated since their original enactment in 
1976. This bill is designed to address those shortfalls to more 
effectively cover modern problems associated with animal fighting 
ventures.
  As I have already mentioned, the legislation increases current 
penalties to provide a meaningful deterrent. One of the primary reasons 
for enacting the increased penalties under title 18 is the reluctance 
of U.S. Attorneys to pursue animal fighting cases under the current 
misdemeanor provisions because they view the penalties as ineffective 
against an animal fighting industry, which has continued unabated 
nationwide.
  H.R. 137 further makes it a felony to transport cockfighting 
implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These implements take the 
form of razor-sharp knives, known as slashers; or gaffs, instruments 
shaped in the form of curved ice picks that are attached to birds' legs 
for fighting. Proponents of these implements within the game fowl 
community apparently contend that they inflict cleaner wounds upon the 
birds which are then quicker and easier to heal.
  Since penalties against animal fighting were codified in 1976, 
Federal authorities have pursued less than half a dozen animal fighting 
cases, despite the fact that the USDA has received numerous tips from 
informants and requests to assist with State and local prosecutions.
  In addition, despite the fact that all 50 States have banned dog 
fighting and all but one State has banned cockfighting, the animal 
fighting industry continues to thrive within the United States. 
Numerous nationally circulated animal fighting magazines advertise 
fighting animals, and paid lobbyists continue to advocate for animal 
fighters' interests. Thankfully, H.R. 137 will seek to bring an end to 
these practices.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill affects matters within the 
jurisdiction of the

[[Page 7641]]

Committee on Agriculture and the Judiciary Committee. Both committees 
have worked closely together to ensure that all matters are dealt with 
appropriately. We appreciate their assistance in bringing this bill 
expeditiously to the floor, and I will insert into the Congressional 
Record at this point an exchange of letters between Chairman Peterson 
of the Agriculture Committee and Chairman Conyers of Judiciary.
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.
     Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the Agriculture Committee's jurisdictional interest 
     in H.R. 137, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement 
     Act of 2007,'' which the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
     by voice vote. As ordered reported, the bill establishes 
     criminal penalties for violations of Federal prohibitions on 
     animal fighting.
       I appreciate your willingness to discharge the bill from 
     further consideration by your Committee, in order to expedite 
     its floor consideration. I understand and agree that this is 
     without prejudice to your Committee's jurisdictional 
     interests in this or similar legislation in the future. In 
     the event a House-Senate conference on this or similar 
     legislation is convened, I would support your request for an 
     appropriate number of conferees.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response as 
     part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the 
     legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your 
     cooperation as we work towards enactment of H.R. 137.
           Sincerely,
                                                John Conyers, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.
     Hon. John Conyers,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding Judiciary Committee action on H.R. 137, a bill to 
     establish criminal penalties for violations of Federal 
     prohibitions on animal fighting.
       In the interest of expediting the consideration of H.R. 
     137, I agree to the discharge of the bill from further 
     consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with 
     the understanding that the Committee on Agriculture does not 
     waive any future jurisdictional claim over this or similar 
     matters. In the event a conference with the Senate is 
     requested on this bill, the Committee on Agriculture reserves 
     the right to seek appointment of conferees.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                               Collin C. Peterson,
                                                         Chairman.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement 
Act of 2007, creates Federal felony penalties for animal fighting. The 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) is the lead 
sponsor of this bill with over 300 cosponsors from both sides of the 
aisle.
  The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act increases criminal 
penalties for illegal dog fighting and cockfighting. The act, 
furthermore, imposes penalties for the interstate promotion of animal 
fighting and the interstate transportation of animals for use in an 
animal fighting venture.
  All 50 States, Mr. Speaker, prohibit dog fighting, and 48 States 
prohibit cockfighting. Louisiana and New Mexico, the two States that 
do, in fact, allow cockfighting, may take up legislation to ban the 
practice as early as this year.
  According to the Humane Society, animal fighting, particularly 
cockfighting, has become an interstate venture with small syndicates of 
cockfighters moving across the country staging these different fights. 
Animal fighting is also linked oftentimes with other criminal conduct 
such as drug trafficking, illegal firearms sales, and gang activity.
  By raising this offense from a misdemeanor to a felony, we are more 
likely to deter illegal animal fighting and increase the likelihood 
that Federal prosecutors will pursue these cases.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, to subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott we owe 
a debt of gratitude, as well as to subcommittee Ranking Member Coble 
and, of course, the author of this bill, Elton Gallegly, who through 
the years has persevered to make us finally come to this day. I guess 
we should also thank about 303 Members of the House of Representatives 
that have stuck with us and supported this legislation all this time. 
My congratulations to all of you. I never thought that a measure that 
was not considered as grave and large as some of the issues that come 
before the House Judiciary Committee would meet with so much 
encouragement and support to get us to this day. I congratulate the 
House of Representatives and the leadership on both sides.
  I join, of course, in this measure and would like to make this point: 
this legislation includes a special provision clarifying the fact that 
it only supersedes State law in the case of a direct or irreconcilable 
conflict. The Humane Society is with us. The American Veterinary 
Medical Association is with us. The National Association of Sheriffs is 
with us, and hundreds and hundreds of local law enforcement agencies in 
every State of the Union have all come out in support of this basic, 
commonsense, long overdue legislation.
  I thank those who have worked so tirelessly across the years to bring 
us to this day where this bill has now come before the floor.
  I'm pleased to join the growing list of supporters, including the 30 
or so Members of the Judiciary Committee, that have decided to lend 
their support to this measure.
  For far too long, the sponsors of abusive animal fighting events 
(including cockfight and dog fight promoters) have been permitted to 
freely engage in such activities without any real fear of prosecution. 
Fortunately, the bill before us seeks to change that.
  First, the legislation provides up to the three years in jail for 
people who transport animals in interstate commerce with the purpose of 
participating in an animal fighting venture. Current law only treats 
such offenses as a mere misdemeanor. However, research has shown us 
that simple misdemeanor criminal penalties don't provide enough of a 
meaningful deterrent, especially when thousands of dollars are wagered 
on a single dog or cock fight.
  Second, the legislation makes it unlawful to sell or ship instruments 
in interstate commerce that are designed to be attached to the leg of a 
bird for use in an animal fighting venture. Razor sharp knives, 
commonly known as ``slashers'', are oftentimes attached to the legs of 
a bird to make cockfights even more violent. This provision would 
prohibit such activity, and subject any violators to a term of 
imprisonment of up to three years in jail.
  Finally, the legislation includes a special provision clarifying that 
this measure only supersedes state law in the case of a direct or 
irreconcilable conflict.
  The Humane Society, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the 
National Sheriffs Association, and nearly 400 local law enforcement 
agencies covering all 50 states have all come out in support of this 
legislation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to lend their support to this 
bipartisan, commonsense measure as well.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), member of the House Judiciary 
Committee and original sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As you know, along with my good friend Earl Blumenauer and Roscoe 
Bartlett, we have been trying to federally criminalize this brutal, 
inhumane practice of animal fighting for the past several Congresses.
  When Congress enacted legislation to tighten Federal animal fighting 
laws, we left in place weak penalties that have proven ineffective and 
allowed the barbaric practice to thrive, in spite of bans in virtually 
every State. Misdemeanor penalties simply don't provide a meaningful 
deterrent. Animal fighters consider misdemeanor penalties as a ``slap 
on the wrist'' or merely the ``cost of doing business.''

[[Page 7642]]

  State and local law enforcement officials are increasingly concerned 
about animal fighting not only because of the animal cruelty involved 
but because of the other crimes that often go hand in hand with animal 
fighting, including illegal gambling, drug trafficking, and acts of 
human violence. In the last 6 months, virtually every reported arrest 
in an animal fight has also led to additional arrests for at least one 
of these criminal activities.
  Cockfighting has also spread diseases that jeopardize poultry and 
even public health. California experienced this firsthand when 
cockfighters spread exotic Newcastle disease in 2002 and 2003. That 
outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate, and the 
cost to the U.S. poultry industry was in the millions. Cockfighting has 
been identified as the major contributor to the spread of avian flu 
throughout Thailand and other parts of Asia, where the strain 
originated.
  I want to express my sincere thanks to you, Earl Blumenauer, and to 
Roscoe Bartlett for their work on this legislation. I also commend and 
thank my good friend and neighbor Mr. John Conyers, the chairman of the 
committee; Lamar Smith, the ranking member; Bobby Scott, the chairman 
of the subcommittee; and Randy Forbes, the ranking member, for 
recognizing the importance of this issue and moving H.R. 137 through 
the Judiciary Committee so quickly.

                              {time}  1715

  Also I want to recognize Collin Peterson on the Ag Committee for his 
assistance.
  Finally, more important than all, is recognizing the 303-plus Members 
that have co-sponsored this legislation. It is hard to believe that we 
have that many people agreeing on something like this when it is not 
often that we have that many people in the House agreeing on what day 
of the week it is. So I want to thank all of them for their support.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with all of us in passing 
this legislation when we bring it to a vote here in a couple of 
minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the lead Democratic sponsor of 
this measure.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Scott's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak and the leadership in taking what is seemingly a 
simple and innocuous bill and bringing it to the floor of the House. I 
appreciate working with my friend, Elton Gallegly. This has been a long 
haul, lots of ups and downs, but today we reach an important milestone.
  This is my fifth year of working on this issue. We were exposed to it 
during the last farm bill. We found that this got caught up in back-
room machinations that really just defy description.
  You have already heard about the despicable cruelty. You have heard 
about the association with illegal activity, gambling, violence, drugs 
and firearms trade. Louisiana is now poised to become the last State to 
make it illegal, making it illegal in every State in the Union.
  Why then is this even an issue? Well, it is an underground and 
pervasive activity. It is in fact active across the country.
  I just heard from one of our floor staff as we walked in today that 
he saw accounts from small town newspapers in Alabama the last 2 weeks 
in articles there. In Portland, Oregon, in recent months we have had 
officers break into a meth and coke den where there were 43 live 
chickens and all the equipment, as well as illegal weapons and large 
amounts of cash. In another high-profile case in my community, a 
professional basketball player was involved with illegal fighting of 
his pit bull.
  This is something that has been an area, frankly, where Congress has 
shamefully been complicit. We have ignored the fact that inadequate 
penalties, as has been said by the chairman of the committee, by my 
friend from California, which have just been the ``cost of doing 
business,'' We have looked the other way.
  This is an important vote today. I am confident with over 300 co-
sponsors it will pass, and it will pass overwhelmingly. But the battle 
is not done. Never underestimate the power of the apologists, the 
allies and the enablers of this vicious and cruel, I won't even call it 
a ``sport,'' it is a vicious practice.
  I am hopeful that we will move forward with not just voting today, 
but make sure that it passes the other body, and it is not subjected, 
as it has been time and time again over the last 5 years, to some other 
devious action.
  Do not sell short the people who are apologists for this sport. Join 
with us not just with your vote but to make sure that we get this 
legislation enacted and then enforced around the country.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
proud support of H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement 
Act of 2007, because it is time for the Federal Government to up the 
ante in its efforts to curb this cruel and gruesome abuse of animals.
  The current misdemeanor penalties in Federal law have not been 
effective. They are considered a cost of doing business by the animal 
fighting industry, which continues to operate across the country.
  This bill addresses the growing problem of animal fighting by 
amending Federal law to prohibit moving animals through interstate 
commerce for the purpose of fighting.
  Do we want to make a Federal case out of this? Yes, we do. Those who 
profit from animal fighting often drug dogs and roosters to make them 
hyper-aggressive and to keep fighting even after suffering severe 
injuries. The animals are in a closed pit from which they cannot 
escape. Often, they die during the fight. This is a gruesome and 
inhumane practice. The American people agree. Dog fighting is illegal 
in 50 States and cockfighting is illegal in most.
  Current law is simply not strong enough. Animal fighting often leads 
to additional criminal behavior. It is associated with illegal 
gambling, narcotics trafficking, public corruption, gang activity, and 
violent behavior toward people.
  The National Sheriffs' Association supports the legislation, and more 
than 400 individual sheriffs and police departments in every State in 
the country have endorsed it. They recognize that animal fighting often 
involves movement of animals across interstate and foreign borders, and 
they can't do the job on their own. They need the Federal Government to 
do its part to curb this dangerous activity.
  I am proud to be a part of this bipartisan effort to curb this 
appalling treatment of animals. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting yes on H.R. 137.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
for this time.
  This is my first year in the Congress. In my 24 years in the State 
senate, I was the leading spokesperson for animal welfare legislation, 
and I took great pride in that. So I am particularly appreciative of 
standing up on this bill.
  I incorporate by reference all the things that have been said about 
the harmful effects of this practice, and they are well known. I think 
that the spread of avian flu and all the other pertinent conduct is to 
be prohibited.
  But the main thing is, dogs are our best friends. Harry Truman said, 
if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. So far, I haven't been 
here 90 days, I have made lots of friends. I haven't needed a dog yet, 
but I have thought about the day. I saw a Congressman come in the other 
day, Congressman Whitfield from Kentucky, he had his dog with him. He 
has been here more years than me.
  Dogs are our friends. We all have dogs that we feel that are part of 
our families. We shouldn't treat any of God's creatures the way that 
people

[[Page 7643]]

treat dogs and cocks; and I guess if I was from Kentucky, Congressman 
Yarmuth, I could speak more fondly about chickens, because the Colonel 
and KFC have done a lot for his district.
  But my particular interest is dogs, and we should treat them well. 
They are our friends. You can go back in TV lore, Lassie and Asta, and 
you think about Snoopy. To teach them to fight, to require them to 
fight, to watch them die is just not what God intended and not what we 
should encourage and condone.
  Children shouldn't be exposed to this, and sometimes they are. This 
type of conduct leads to other types of harmful conduct and violence 
against women, violence against seniors. People who enjoy this type of 
violence and watching it are more often than not going to be the most 
likely people to pick on others who are unable to take care of 
themselves.
  I am very proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 137. I look forward to its 
passage and the day that we don't have people who get some type of 
great enjoyment out of watching dogs, cocks or any other of God's 
creatures fight to the death and find pleasure and enjoyment in it and 
teach their children by that association that violence is something 
good, when it isn't.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am advised the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia would like me to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) which I am pleased to do.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank both my friend from North 
Carolina and my friend from Virginia, as well as the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, for bringing this forward, as well as those who 
have spoken on behalf of this bill.
  This is not just a nuisance industry. This is a malicious industry 
that represents a very, very serious public health threat. We are very 
much concerned that the interstate or international transport, 
especially of birds used for cockfighting, could spread an influenza 
outbreak. The World Health Organization has reported at least nine 
confirmed human cases of avian flu in Thailand and Vietnam that they 
expect is related directly to cockfighting activity.
  The American Veterinary Medical Association, the poultry industry, 
all the animal protection associations, of course, but the National 
Sheriffs' Association as well has urged us to pass this bill.
  Yes, there are 50 different State bills against dog fighting, 49 
against cockfighting, but many of them are different. And the fact is 
there is a great deal of interstate commerce that takes place, so you 
need a Federal law banning this, because it is so closely associated, 
and this is what the National Sheriffs' Association tells us, so 
closely associated to illegal gambling, trafficking of narcotics, 
public corruption, dangerous gang activity. There are so many reasons 
why we should ban this practice.
  As has been said, it is cruel, and it is inhumane. They drug these 
animals so that they are hyper-aggressive, so that they will continue 
fighting until they kill or are killed. That is not right. It is not 
moral. But even beyond the cruel and inhumane aspect of this practice, 
it represents a very dangerous public health threat, as well as a 
source of a great deal of other illegal criminal activity.
  This House would be well-served to listen to the more than 300 
Members who have cosponsored this legislation and pass it today.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the author of the 
bill and certainly the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, the 
chairman of the full committee and ranking members as well.
  I rise to enthusiastically support H.R. 137 and announce that it is 
impacting so many different communities that it is imperative that 
there be a Federal prohibition on transporting animals interstate. 
There is a question of disease, there is a question of violence, and 
certainly with the increasing numbers of dangerous animals that attack 
human beings, fighting animals certainly pose a severe threat to the 
community.
  This is a good bill. I am delighted to be a co-sponsor. The good news 
is that we are getting it through the House today. This bill has been 
around since the last session. I congratulate all of the authors. It is 
time now to spell relief by passing this bill and protecting the lives 
of our children and saving the lives of those who would be endangered 
by cockfighting and other dangerous activities with animals.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 137, the ``Animal 
Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.'' I was a co-sponsor of 
this legislation when it was considered in the 109th Congress and a 
strong supporter and co-sponsor when the bill was re-introduced in this 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 137 establishes felony-level jail time (up to 3 
years) for violators of the Federal animal fighting law. The bill 
amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to strengthen the maximum jail time 
from the 1-year misdemeanor level in current law. The bill also 
prohibits interstate and foreign commerce in cockfighting weapons.


  1. DOGFIGHTING AND COCKFIGHTING ARE INHUMANE AND BARBARIC ACTIVITIES

  In a typical fight, animals are drugged to heighten their aggression 
and forced to keep fighting even after injuries such as pierced lungs 
and gouged eyes--all for the amusement and illegal wagering of handlers 
and spectators. Dogfighting and cockfighting are also associated with 
other criminal conduct, such as drug traffic, illegal firearms use, and 
violence toward people. Children are often present at these spectacles. 
Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs; 
some allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the 
public.


                     2. FELONY PENALTIES ARE NEEDED

  Misdemeanor penalties don't provide a meaningful deterrent; they're 
considered a ``slap on the wrist'' or a ``cost of doing business.'' And 
prosecutors are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases carrying only 
a misdemeanor penalty. Since the Federal animal fighting law was first 
enacted in 1976, authorities have pursued only a handful of cases, 
despite receiving innumerable informant tips about illegal interstate 
activity and requests to assist with state and local busts and 
prosecutions.


 3. THE ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT BRINGS FEDERAL LAW 
                        IN LINE WITH STATE LAWS

  When the Federal animal fighting law was enacted in 1976, only one 
state had felony penalties for animal fighting. Today, dogfighting is a 
felony in 48 states, and cockfighting is a felony in 33 states. State 
laws commonly authorize jail time of 3 to 5 years or more for animal 
fighting.


4. OTHER RECENT FEDERAL ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS THAT AMENDED TITLE 18 OF 
                  THE U.S. CODE HAVE FELONY PENALTIES

  In 1999, Congress authorized imprisonment of up to 5 years for 
interstate commerce in videos depicting animal cruelty, including 
animal fighting (P.L. 106-152), and mandatory jail time of up to 10 
years for willfully harming or killing a federal police dog or horse 
(P.L. 106-254).


5. THERE IS NO REASON TO ALLOW INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN SHARP 
             IMPLEMENTS DESIGNED EXCLUSIVELY FOR COCKFIGHTS

  Razor-sharp knives known as ``slashers'' and ice pick-like gaffs are 
attached to the legs of birds to make cockfights more violent. These 
weapons, used only in cockfights, are sold through cockfighting 
magazines and through the Internet.


   6. THE ANIMAL FIGHTING INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO THRIVE ACROSS THE U.S

  All 50 states ban dogfighting, 48 states ban cockfighting, and there 
has been a dramatic increase in the number of animal fighting raids by 
state and local authorities. Yet numerous nationally circulated animal 
fighting magazines still promote these cruel practices and advertise 
fighting animals and the accoutrements of animal fighting. There are 
also several active websites for animal fighting enthusiasts, and paid 
lobbyists advocating animal fighters' interests.


 7. COCKFIGHTERS HAVE SPREAD DISEASES AND POSE A CONTINUING THREAT TO 
                       FARMERS AND PUBLIC HEALTH

  As former Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman wrote in a May 2004 
letter indicating the Bush Administration's endorsement of the animal 
fighting felony legislation:

       ``[cockfighting has] been implicated in the introduction 
     and spread of exotic Newcastle disease in California in 2002-
     2003, which cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to 
     eradicate, and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions 
     more in lost export markets. . . . We believe that tougher 
     penalties

[[Page 7644]]

     and prosecution will help to deter illegal movement of birds 
     as well as the inhumane practice of cockfighting itself.''

  According to government officials, interstate and international 
transport of fighting birds posed the greatest risk of transmission, 
since cockfighters move their birds often and participants from as many 
as a dozen states gather at illegal fighting derbies.
  Cockfighting also has been implicated in the deaths of at least 9 
people in Asia who were reportedly exposed through cockfighting 
activity to bird flu. The National Chicken Council, which represents 95 
percent of U.S. poultry producers/processors, has called on Congress to 
enact the animal fighting felony legislation, noting ``we are concerned 
that the nationwide traffic in game birds creates a continuing hazard 
for the dissemination of animal diseases.'' We can't afford not to act. 
The economic consequences of an avian influenza outbreak are 
staggering--with U.S. losses estimated at between $185 and $618 billion 
(Congressional Budget Office) and worldwide losses projected from $1.5 
to $2 trillion (The World Bank).


           8. H.R. 137 ENJOYS OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

  H.R. 137 currently has more than 300 sponsors. More than 400 local 
and state law enforcement agencies covering every state in the country 
have endorsed this legislation, along with animal welfare, poultry 
industry, and other organizations. Enacting this animal fighting 
legislation is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 137.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation. It is bipartisan legislation. We have listened to all 
of the people who have worked long and hard on this legislation. I hope 
it will be the pleasure of the House to pass the bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support the Animal Fighting 
Prohibition Act, which would raise the penalty for violators of the 
federal animal welfare law, from a class 1 misdemeanor to a felony. In 
an industry where thousands of dollars change hands with each fight, 
misdemeanor fines and charges are simply considered ``the costs of 
doing business''. This bill would close this loophole and keep 
criminals from traveling to states with weaker penalties to conduct 
their business.
  Animal fights are not only despicable for their cruelty to animals, 
but they are commonly associated with illegal gambling, drug traffic, 
firearms trades, and numerous other illicit activities. Recently in 
Oregon, officers found meth, cocaine, $10,000 in cash, along with 43 
live chickens, cockfighting equipment including metal spurs and gaffs 
in a Portland man's home. Drugs are often the impetus for the discovery 
of gamecocks and illegal weapons. In another high profile Oregon case, 
a former Portland Trailblazer pled guilty to animal abuse for fighting 
his pit bull. Officials found her bloody, scarred, and covered in tar 
which is used by fighters as a cheap antiseptic to fresh wounds.
  But animal fighting doesn't just pose a threat to the people and 
animals who engage in them, it has enormous costs to the United States 
health and economy. Cockfighting has been implicated in the 
introduction and spread of exotic Newcastle disease in California in 
2002-2003, which cost the U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to 
eradicate. The disease spread further to large scale egg farms in 
Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas; costing the U.S. poultry 
industry many millions of dollars in lost export markets. Cockfighting 
has also been implicated in the deaths of at least 9 people in Asia who 
contracted avian flu after exposure to fighting birds. If avian flu 
were to reach the shores of America, the economic and human 
consequences would be staggering.
  This bill has widespread support across the country, including 303 
cosponsors in the House and 35 cosponsors in the Senate. HR 137 is 
endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, the National 
Chicken Council which represents 95 percent of the Nation's poultry 
producers, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National 
Sheriff's Association, and more than 400 local law enforcement 
agencies. Currently there is only one bastion left for cock fighters; 
the State of Louisiana. Although gamers have attempted to use tribal 
lands as exemptions from state and federal laws, a federal jury 
recently convicted four men for their participation in a cockfight, and 
70 others entered guilty pleas. It is my understanding that the 
increase in penalties contained within this bill would be equally 
applicable to animal fights held on tribal lands or Indian 
Reservations.
  It is far past time that Congress give our law enforcement agencies 
the tools they need to end this barbaric and consequential practice.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 137, the Animal 
Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, of which I am also a cosponsor. 
The way a society treats its animals speaks to the core values and 
priorities of its citizens. I am committed to animal welfare because I 
believe humankind has an obligation to all animals.
  Currently, it is a misdemeanor to sell, buy, or transport an animal 
to be used in a fight.
  This legislation would make the crime a felony and increase the 
imprisonment penalty from 1 year to 3 years. The legislation also makes 
it unlawful to ship in interstate commerce a knife, gaff, or other 
sharp instrument used in cockfighting, and makes it a felony to use the 
postal service to promote an animal fight.
  Dog fighting is banned in 50 states and cockfighting is banned in all 
but two, so I believe the Federal government is simply codifying a 
value that our States governments have already individually expressed.
  Animal fighting is a cruel pastime where, in a typical fight, animals 
are drugged to heighten their aggression and forced to keep fighting, 
even after injuries, for the amusement and illegal wagering of handlers 
and spectators. We must put an end to this form of entertainment, which 
results in the brutal treatment of animals.
  As a co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, I will 
continue to work on a bipartisan basis to help protect animals at the 
Federal level.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues Mr. 
Gallegly and Mr. Blumenauer, I have introduced H.R. 137 to establish 
felony-level jail time of up to 3 years for those who violate the law 
against animal fighting. H.R. 137 would amend current law to toughen 
the maximum jail time from a one-year misdemeanor.
  The penalties in the existing federal animal fighting statute are too 
weak. The upgraded penalty better aligns federal law with state law. 
Almost all states have established felony-level penalties for illegal 
animal fighting activities. State laws commonly authorize jail time of 
3 to 5 years or more for animal fighting.
  George Bernard Shaw once stated, ``The worst sin toward our fellow 
creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them, that's 
the essence of inhumanity.'' We should not be indifferent to the 
reprehensible underground organized crime of animal fighting, which is 
not only cruel but poses threats to public health and safety.
  The Humane Society of the U.S. estimates that there are at least 
40,000 dogfighters in America. Cockfighting has been tied to the spread 
of bird flu. Animal fighting spawns a number of other criminal 
activities, such as illegal gambling and using and selling drugs. Even 
more disturbing is the conclusion by many experts that acts of cruelty 
against animals are precursors to violence against humans. The felony-
level penalties against animal fighting in H.R. 137 are necessary, and 
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 137, 
the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have had a lifelong love and 
compassion for animals of all kinds. That is why I am simply shocked 
that it is not already illegal to take animals across state lines for 
the purpose of fighting. This is an inhumane and cruel practice that 
must not be allowed to continue. Another reason why this practice must 
be outlawed is because animal fighting spreads disease and poses an 
enormous public health risk. At a time when avian flu is at the 
forefront of this county's health-related worries, it should be of the 
utmost concern to people that animal fighting is occurring all across 
the country. It makes one wonder, what kind of person could enjoy a 
``sport'' like this?
  In the forty-eight states where animal fighting is already outlawed, 
illegal gambling goes hand-in-hand with this gruesome activity. H.R. 
137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007, makes it 
a felony to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal or to use interstate 
commerce for the purposes of fighting. This bill would impose a prison 
sentence of up to 3 years.
  I have supported this legislation since 2003. I am pleased that this 
legislation has overwhelming bipartisan support, with 303 cosponsors. 
Obviously we need stronger laws on this because this practice still 
continues.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 137, the Animal 
Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 137, the 
Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. It is hard to 
believe that an act as horrendous and brutal as animal fighting still 
takes place today.
  H.R. 137 would make engaging in animal fighting a felony. This 
legislation will ensure

[[Page 7645]]

that those who choose to fight animals illegally will be met with the 
appropriate penalty when they disregard the law.
  Despite the fact that the vast majority of states have banned this 
atrocious and deplorable act, animal fighting continues to plague our 
communities. Animals such as dogs and chickens are fought to the death 
in the name of sport. This is unhealthy, violent behavior on the part 
of humans and is inhumane and merciless to the animals.
  I commend both local and state officials for stepping up raids on 
animal fighting rings. Now it is time for this body of Congress to do 
our part by making these offenses a felony under Federal law. I urge my 
colleagues to join me and vote in favor of the Animal Fighting 
Prohibition Enforcement Act, H.R. 137.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. I 
want to thank my colleagues Representative Gallegly and Representative 
Blumenauer for their hard work on this issue.
  This important legislation will make it illegal to transport an 
animal across State or international borders for the purpose of 
fighting, prohibits use of the mail system to promote animal fighting, 
and criminalizes interstate buying, selling, or transportation of 
knives or gaffs used for animal fighting.
  Animal fighting is a deplorable activity with a purely negative 
impact on society. In cockfights, when two birds fight with blades or 
gaffs attached to their feet, at least one, and sometimes both of the 
birds are killed. Dogs who are made to fight often sustain severe 
injuries such as deep wounds and broken bones. Subsequent to fights, 
many dogs die of blood loss, exhaustion, or shock. Fighting animals are 
usually subject to inhumane living conditions intended to make them 
more aggressive, sometimes denied adequate nutrition, and made to 
exercise until they are physically exhausted.
  In addition to the inexcusable harm inflicted on the animals, the 
fights also have negative effects on humans. Illegal gambling and drug 
trafficking are often closely tied to animal fighting operations. Also, 
animals bred to fight are abnormally aggressive, and pose a danger to 
the communities they live in if they were to get loose.
  I applaud the passage of this bill, which will end an inhumane 
practice that is an embarrassment to our country. I am proud that this 
democratic majority has made animal welfare a priority in the 110th 
Congress.
  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.

[[Page 7646]]

  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.

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on February 7, 2007, the House 
Committee of the Judiciary passed by voice vote H.R. 137, the Animal 
Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This is a bad piece of 
legislation that will greatly devalue human life in the eyes of the 
law.
  H.R. 137 would make it a federal felony to transport a chicken across 
state lines for the purpose of exhibiting it in a fight. Currently, 49 
states have laws on the books to address this issue. To add a federal 
law would add another layer of bureaucracy to an already complicated 
legal code.
  I believe that human life is diminished by our making it a felony to 
transport animals for fighting, without first making it a felony to 
take a minor girl across a state line for an abortion. It is a strong 
conviction of mine to fight for the sanctity of life.
  While I believe that it is important that we act humanely in our 
treatment of animals, I do not believe that we should put their welfare 
ahead of unborn babies or minor girls. I call upon the Humane Society 
to work for humanity to humanity first.
  Until we provide a higher standard of protection for human life, I 
will oppose making interstate transportation of animals for purposes of 
animal fighting a felony. In the U.S., we are faced with the alarming 
practice of people taking a minor girl across state lines for an 
abortion to avoid their own state's laws that require the minor's 
parents to be notified. Federal legislation, CIANA, the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act, would only make this abhorrent 
activity, which exploits a young woman and kills her child, a 
misdemeanor. Though this legislation has not yet become law, it is a 
step forward in the right direction. Many who I know opposed CIANA in 
the past will vote today for the misdemeanor in current law, 
transporting a chicken, to become a felony, thereby placing animal 
welfare over that of a young girl and her unborn baby.
  I believe that we should not place more value on animal life than we 
do on human life. It makes no sense that killing a person is a 
misdemeanor offense while transporting animals to a fight is a felony, 
punishable by three years in a federal penitentiary.
  Mr. Speaker, while on the topic of valuing human life, I would like 
to talk briefly about bio-medical research, which is opposed by animal 
rights activists. I would like to mention that there is bio-medical 
research being done demonstrating, through transgenics, that the immune 
system from a baboon, or a human for that matter, can be spliced into 
the DNA of a hog to grow a heart a baboon can use.
  The heart was then harvested from the hog and transplanted to a 
baboon. The baboon lived another 6 months with a heart that was grown 
in a pig. This is longer then the first human heart transplant patient.
  But what has been proven now is that humans can transplant through 
transgenics the human immune system into a hog. In doing so, and we are 
only 3 years, maybe 4 years away from being able to custom build the 
human organ. rejection genetics into a pig.
  We will be able to very soon custom raise human organs in hogs. Today 
we are already transplanting out of hogs and into humans anterior 
cruciate ligaments and heart valves.
  We can raise in hogs 28 different organs. Not just hearts, but lungs, 
esophagus, stomach, bladder, but other important organs as well, 
kidneys, pancreas, liver, even skin for bum patients; name your organ. 
Except for the brain.
  The reason for bringing up these pigs is that it further illustrates 
how the animal rights community, through legislation such as H.R. 137, 
seeks to pass their agenda for animals on the rest of America. They 
oppose using animals for lifesaving research like I just mentioned.
  My home state of Iowa is an agricultural state. We understand the 
importance of animal husbandry and good stewardship of our animals. 
However, we also understand that animals are less important than 
humans. Animal rights activists seek to place heifers and hogs on the 
same level as people. I disagree.
  I strongly oppose this legislation because animals should not be 
elevated above humans. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia 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 Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 137, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. 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 question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________