[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13454-13457]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PREVENTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS ACT OF 2010

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 5566) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
prohibit interstate commerce in animal crush videos, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5566

       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 ``Prevention of Interstate 
     Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Federal Government and the several States have a 
     compelling interest in preventing animal cruelty.
       (2) Each of the several States and the District of Columbia 
     criminalize intentional acts of animal cruelty.
       (3) The clandestine nature of certain acts of animal 
     cruelty allows the perpetrators of such crimes to remain 
     anonymous, thus frustrating the ability of Federal and State 
     authorities to enforce the criminal statutes prohibiting such 
     behavior.
       (4) These criminal acts constitute an integral part of the 
     production of and market for so-called crush videos and other 
     depictions of animal cruelty.
       (5) The creation and sale of crush videos provide an 
     economic incentive for, and are intrinsically related to, the 
     underlying acts of the criminal conduct.
       (6) The United States has a long history of prohibiting the 
     interstate sale of obscene and illegal materials.
       (7) Animal crush videos appeal to the prurient interest and 
     are obscene.

     SEC. 3. ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS.

       (a) In General.--Section 48 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 48. Animal crush videos

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Whoever knowingly and for the purpose 
     of commercial advantage or private financial gain sells or 
     offers to sell, or distributes or offers to distribute, an 
     animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, 
     or both.
       ``(b) Rule of Construction.--Subsection (a) does not 
     prohibit the sale, distribution, or offer for sale or 
     distribution, of any visual depiction of--
       ``(1) customary and normal veterinary or agricultural 
     husbandry practices; or
       ``(2) hunting, trapping, or fishing.
       ``(c) Definition.--In this section the term `animal crush 
     video' means any obscene photograph, motion-picture film, 
     video recording, or electronic image that depicts actual 
     conduct in which one or more living animals is intentionally 
     crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled in a manner 
     that would violate a criminal prohibition on cruelty to 
     animals under Federal law or the law of the State in which 
     the depiction is created, sold, distributed, or offered for 
     sale or distribution.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 48 in 
     the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``48. Animal crush videos.''.

     SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS PROVISION.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives, provided that such statement has been 
     submitted prior to the vote on passage.


[[Page 13455]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) 
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 
to 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation addresses a disturbing subject in need 
of congressional action.
  In the late 1990s, Congress was made aware of a growing market of 
videotapes and still photographs depicting animals, typically small 
animals, being slowly and sadistically crushed to death. These 
depictions are commonly referred to as ``crush videos.'' Much of the 
material features women inflicting torture with their bare feet or 
while wearing high-heeled shoes. The depictions often appeal to people 
with a very specific sexual fetish.
  Even in States where harming the animals in such a way itself 
violates State laws prohibiting cruelty to animals, prosecutors had 
difficulty obtaining convictions. For example, the faces of the persons 
inflicting the torture were often not shown in the videos; and the 
locations, times and dates of the acts could not be ascertained from 
the depictions themselves. So defendants were often able to 
successfully assert as a defense that the State could not prove its 
jurisdiction over the place where the acts occurred nor that it could 
prove that the actions took place within the statute of limitations.
  In short, it has been difficult enough to find the perpetrators of 
the underlying acts of cruelty to animals. Then, even after they have 
been found, it has been difficult to obtain convictions.
  So Congress enacted a new law prohibiting the creation, sale, and 
possession of the depictions of such acts. The new law was codified as 
section 48 of title XVIII of the U.S. Code. The motivation for passing 
the law was to address the sale of crush videos, but the statute was 
written in such a way that it also could be read, in some 
circumstances, to apply to more mainstream material, such as videos 
depicting hunting and fishing and other activity protected by the First 
Amendment of the Constitution.
  Because of this susceptibility to a broader reading, in April the 
United States Supreme Court invalidated the entire statute in the case 
United States v. Stevens, holding that the law was overbroad and 
violated the First Amendment. The Court made it clear, however, it did 
not rule out the possibility of Congress' adopting a bill that would 
hold up under constitutional scrutiny.
  In May, the Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing about the decision. 
It heard from witnesses who testified that a narrower legislative 
approach would likely be constitutional and survive court challenge.
  The bill before us is much more narrow than the original law. The 
most important difference is that the bill would only prohibit the sale 
of crush videos that are obscene under current law. This would address 
a key flaw in the original statute because obscenity is outside the 
protections of the First Amendment. Whereas some of the activity 
covered by the prior law under the broader reading was, in fact, 
protected by the First Amendment, a much narrower range of conduct is 
covered in the depictions prohibited by this bill. Furthermore, this 
legislation specifically makes it clear that hunting and fishing videos 
would not be covered by the prohibition.
  I commend my colleague from California (Mr. Gallegly) and my 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Peters), who worked together to produce 
this bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Conyers; my good friend, 
subcommittee chairman Bobby Scott; and, of course, our ranking member, 
Lamar Smith, for working closely with me to draft a bill that would 
help put a stop to the sale of animal crush videos while, at the same 
time, addressing the First Amendment concerns that were raised by a 
recent Supreme Court ruling.
  The district attorney of Ventura County, California, first brought 
this issue to my attention back in 1999. He explained that, although 
crush videos were illegal under State laws, the crime was difficult to 
prosecute because video producers moved their goods through interstate 
commerce to avoid prosecution.
  The FBI, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of 
Justice consider animal cruelty to be one of the early warning signs of 
potential violent youth. The Boston Strangler, the Unabomber, Jeffrey 
Dahmer, and Ted Bundy all tortured animals before they began to murder 
people.

                              {time}  1900

  Everyone agrees that these disgusting videos must be stopped. My 
first bill passed the House in 1999 by a bipartisan vote of 372-42, by 
unanimous consent in the Senate, and was signed into law by then-
President Bill Clinton. The Supreme Court ruled in April of this year 
that the 1999 law was too broad, but indicated it may uphold a law that 
is more narrowly drafted.
  In response to the court's decision, I, along with my good friend 
Representative Gary Peters, introduced H.R. 5566, the Prevention of 
Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010. Based on the 
testimony of the constitutional experts at the May 26 Crime 
Subcommittee hearing, I worked with Members on both sides of the aisle 
to craft legislation that is narrowly focused on prohibiting crush 
videos rather than prohibiting depiction of animal cruelty.
  Immediately after the 1999 bill became law, the crush video business 
virtually disappeared. It has recently reemerged in light of the court 
ruling. Quick passage of H.R. 5566 will once again stop these revolting 
videos that depict the torture of animals and killing defenseless 
animals.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 5566.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters), who has worked extremely hard on 
this legislation.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, animal torture videos are heinous, barbaric, 
and completely unacceptable, and we must stop them once and for all. 
It's hard to believe that this sort of thing even exists, and that a 
new law is needed to prevent it. Animal torture is outrageously 
disturbing, and common decency and morality dictates that those engaged 
in it should not be profiting from it. They should be in prison.
  This is why I have introduced H.R. 5566, along with Representatives 
Gallegly and Moran, the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal 
Crush Videos Act of 2010. This legislation will ban the sale or 
distribution of so-called crush videos, depictions of small animals 
being tortured and slowly crushed to death, and other videos depicting 
abhorrent animal torture. Our bill responds to the Supreme Court's 
recent holding that a 1999 statute banning crush videos was overbroad, 
and therefore invalid under the First Amendment. H.R. 5566 carefully 
parses and responds to the Stevens decision, and it is written to 
survive another round of judicial review if challenged after enactment.
  I appreciate the leadership of my colleagues, Representatives 
Gallegly, Moran, and Blumenauer, on animal protection issues generally, 
and specifically on animal crush legislation. As cochairs of the 
Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, of which I am a member, 
Representatives Moran and Gallegly are committed to advancing 
commonsense animal protection legislation.
  I would also like to thank the Humane Society for their help 
throughout

[[Page 13456]]

the drafting process, and for all of their tireless animal protection 
efforts. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Conyers, Chairman 
Scott, and the members of the Judiciary Committee for their commitment 
to advancing this necessary, commonsense legislation. I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may 
consume to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the time and for 
his leadership on this very important issue.
  I rise today in strong support and as a cosponsor for the Prevention 
of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act. And I thank Mr. 
Gallegly and Mr. Peters, and all of those who are involved in dealing 
with this horrific, horrific problem.
  The recent Supreme Court decision overturned 10 years of Federal law 
that outlawed animal crush videos. They said that the 1999 law was 
overbroad. And the Supreme Court also left open an avenue for a more 
targeted law. So today we make it clear, again, that the intentional 
crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, and impaling of animals for 
profit is beyond sick, and it must be stopped.
  Today, with this narrowly tailored measure, we will end the trade of 
crush videos, videos where animals are tortured for profit. Animal 
abuse and profiting from these actions are beyond wrong. It's our 
responsibility to close the loopholes to crack down and end the trade 
in crush videos, and I urge a ``yes'' on the Prevention of Interstate 
Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act to end this unconscionable 
practice.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on this, as I appreciate his hard work with the 
Judiciary Committee, and my friend Mr. Gallegly from California.
  This is an area, Mr. Speaker, that I personally think that we ought 
to be able to come together. I supported the original legislation. I 
found it horrific that we would have people profiting from the most 
obscene displays of cruelty to animals. I understand the arguments that 
were made before the Supreme Court, but I think they made it clear that 
there was an opportunity to craft it more narrowly, and I think the 
Judiciary Committee has done a good job in doing so.
  I am pleased that this is one of the areas where Congress has been 
able to come together, people on both sides of the aisle, to act 
quickly in an area that actually is important to avoid demeaning us 
all.
  Mr. Speaker, cruelty to animals is not something that is just sort of 
an esoteric issue that is one that is only nominally of interest. This 
is something that speaks to the fundamentals of whether or not our 
communities are going to be livable, whether or not we can relate 
positively to one another. There is study after study that documents 
that people who are abusive to animals are also people who are likely 
to be abusive to their fellow human beings. It is a broad, far-reaching 
problem we have in our communities still.
  Having worked with the committee in the past on issues that relate to 
animal fighting, there is a dark subculture here with people who get 
satisfaction, emotional, sexual, out of seeing animals suffer. It seems 
to me that it is important for us to respond quickly to be able to fill 
the gap. I don't think anybody benefits from this type of activity 
other than people who profit from it and people who have their own 
sadomasochistic satisfaction.
  I appreciate what the committee has done to meet the court's First 
Amendment concerns and still speak to making sure that there are not 
people who are engaged in these activities and profiting from it. At 
the time of the original legislation, there were thousands of animal 
crush videos, for example on the Internet. But after the enactment of 
the original ban, they essentially disappeared. Now, after the Supreme 
Court decision, we have seen a resurgence, one that is not in anybody's 
interests. I hope that we are able to move with dispatch passing this 
today, and moving onto the Senate, to be able to enact this and have 
one significant, discrete area of progress that we can all take pride 
in.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join us in passing 
this bill, and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the people 
who have spoken and worked hard on this bill to get it in a form which 
we believe will pass constitutional muster. Any time you deal with a 
subject like this you have to deal with the First Amendment. The last 
bill didn't quite make it, but we believe, based on the testimony we 
have had today and the testimony we had at the hearing, that this bill 
will survive constitutional muster and deal with the trash that is 
being profited on.
  So I thank my colleagues and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Congressman 
Gallegly for his effort to bring this to the floor.
  It is Congressman Gallegly who originally brought this issue to the 
attention of Congress 10 years ago, and I have enjoyed working with him 
as Co-Chairs of the Animal Protection Caucus to pass this important 
bill.
  Quite simply, animal crush videos contain some of the vilest 
treatment of animals imaginable. They feature scantily clad women 
crushing, impaling, or burning small animals of all types, apparently 
for the sexual gratification of some sick people. These videos have no 
redeeming value and clearly fall outside the realm of protected speech.
  But although these videos contain behavior that would be considered 
animal cruelty under state and federal laws, it is nearly impossible to 
prove who produces the videos, making a ban on their sale through 
interstate commerce the only means of ending the market for this smut.
  A law was passed by Congress 11 years ago that did just that, but 
earlier this year the Supreme Court struck down that law, claiming it 
could be used to violate free speech rights.
  While I didn't agree with that decision, it was clear that Congress 
could not just stand by while these videos once again proliferated on 
the Internet. Not only are they viciously inhumane to the animals 
involved, but they also teach behavior that can lead to other violent 
crimes against animals and humans.
  As demonstrated by the its long list of bipartisan cosponsors and its 
unanimous passage out of Committee, this bill represents a good faith 
effort by Members of both parties to maintain the effectiveness of the 
original law while addressing the constitutional concerns raised by the 
Court.
  Those who attempt to make a profit off the sale of crush videos 
showing the torture of animals should not be allowed to hide behind the 
claim that they did not produce the content.
  This bill will take away that pathetic excuse, and I urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5566, the 
Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act.
  Crush videos are videotapes depicting small animals, including cats, 
dogs, and even monkeys, being slowly crushed to death. Many of these 
videos feature women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or 
while wearing high heeled shoes. These videos capture the cries and 
squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain.
  In 1999, Congress enacted H.R. 1887 to criminalize the commercial 
creation, sale, or possession of these heinous videos. However, in 
April of this year, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional 
this Federal statute. The court held that the language of the statute 
was overly broad and would have extended to legitimate activities.
  In response, Congressman Gallegly introduced and I cosponsored The 
Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act. This 
legislation amends the Federal criminal code to cure the defects in the 
Federal statute. The bill prohibits a person from knowingly selling or 
distributing an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce 
for the purpose of commercial advantage of private financial gain. This 
legislation also excludes from its scope the sale or distribution of 
any visual depiction of hunting, trapping, fishing, or customary and 
normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices.
  In addition, the bill narrows the definition of ``Animal Crush 
Video'' to make clear that it is not targeting legitimate products and 
to tie the activity to the violation of a state or Federal law.

[[Page 13457]]

  I believe it is important to stop these heinous activities, and I 
support this legislation that more effectively targets these crimes 
without affecting other, legitimate activities like hunting and fishing 
videos.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
5566, Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 
2010. As a cosponsor of this bill, I know how important it is to pass 
this piece of legislation to protect animals from being abused for 
crush videos.
  Mohandas Gandhi once said ``The greatness of a nation and its moral 
progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.'' This wise 
man was correct; and we must uphold our nation's moral standards by 
protecting our animals. Animal crush videos depict conduct in which a 
living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or 
killed. In 1999, Congress passed a law outlawing the creation and 
trafficking of these videos. Recently, however, the Supreme Court 
struck down that law on first amendment grounds; arguing that law 
covered too much speech. This legislation was written, in response to 
the Supreme Court ruling, to narrowly outlaw animal crush videos while 
preserving all American's first amendment rights. I support this bill 
because animal crush videos depict living animals being tortured for 
human gratification. While all Americans have the right to free speech 
and expression, I can not in good conscience use the first amendment to 
justify allowing torture and abuse of animals.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5566, 
the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 
2010. This bill will ban the sale and distribution of so-called animal 
crush videos. In reality, they are shocking displays of animal cruelty.
  This bill was introduced in response to the Supreme Court's decision 
in U.S. v. Stevens to strike down a previous law that banned these 
videos, as unconstitutional. The sponsor of the new bill, Congressman 
Gallegly, worked with law and constitutional scholars to ensure that 
this bill is narrowly tailored to be able to survive strict First 
Amendment scrutiny while still banning the sale and distribution of 
these horrific videos.
  Additionally, for the opponents out there who incorrectly object to 
the bill on the grounds that it may restrict hunting and fishing 
rights, the bill clarifies that depictions of hunting, fishing, 
trapping and common animal husbandry practices are exempt.
  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 at 
the cruelty exhibited in these videos. What upsets me more is that 
there is an audience out there that enjoys the brutality depicted in 
these videos.
  I supported the original legislation that banned the depiction of 
animal cruelty in the 106th Congress. Today I want to strongly add my 
support to H.R. 5566, the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal 
Crush Videos Act of 2010.
  Mr. Speaker, it is past time that this inhumane and cruel practice is 
once and for all put to an end.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Himes). 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. 5566, 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. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________