[House Report 108-756]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-756

======================================================================



 
                      ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION 
                        ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2004

                                _______
                                

October 7, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4264]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 4264) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     1
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     3
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Vote of the Committee............................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     5
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     5
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     6
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     6
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6
Markup Transcript................................................     8

                             The Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition 
Enforcement Act of 2004''.

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. Animal fighting prohibition

    ``(a) Sponsoring or Exhibiting an Animal in an Animal Fighting 
Venture.--
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
        shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or 
        exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal 
        in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce.
            ``(2) Special rule for certain states.--With respect to 
        fighting ventures involving live birds in a State where it 
        would not be in violation of the law, it shall be unlawful 
        under this subsection for a person to sponsor or exhibit a bird 
        in the fighting venture only if the person knew that any bird 
        in the fighting venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, 
        transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for 
        the purpose of participation in the fighting venture.
    ``(b) Buying, Selling, Delivering, or Transporting Animals for 
Participation in Animal Fighting Venture.--It shall be unlawful for any 
person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver, or receive for 
purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog 
or other animal for purposes of having the dog or other animal 
participate in an animal fighting venture.
    ``(c) Use of Postal Service or Other Interstate Instrumentality for 
Promoting Animal Fighting Venture.--It shall be unlawful for any person 
to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service 
or any instrumentality of interstate commerce for commercial speech 
promoting an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the 
limits of the States of the United States.
    ``(d) Violation of State Law.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the 
activities prohibited by such subsection shall be unlawful with respect 
to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take 
place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof.
    ``(e) Sharp Instruments.--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.
    ``(f) Penalties.--Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), (c), 
or (e) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 
2 years, or both, for each such violation.
    ``(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            ``(1) the term `animal fighting venture' means any event 
        which involves a fight between at least two animals and is 
        conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment 
        except that the term `animal fighting venture' shall not be 
        deemed to include any activity the primary purpose of which 
        involves the use of one or more animals in hunting another 
        animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox 
        hunting;
            ``(2) 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;
            ``(3) the term `State' means any State of the United 
        States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; and
            ``(4) the term `animal' means any live bird, or any live 
        dog or other mammal, except man.
    ``(h) Conflict With State Law.--The provisions of this section do 
not supersede or otherwise invalidate any such State, local, or 
municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures 
except in case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between any 
requirements thereunder and this section or any rule, regulation, or 
standard hereunder.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for chapter 3 of 
title 18, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 48 
the following:

``49. Animal fighting prohibition.''.
    (c) Repeal of Criminal Penalty in the Animal Welfare Act.--Section 
26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) is amended by striking 
subsection (e).

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 4264 strengthens the prohibitions against animal 
fighting ventures within the United States. Under current law, 
animal fighting prohibitions are misdemeanors under Title 7 of 
the U.S. Code. H.R. 4264 makes the buying, selling, or 
transporting of animals for participation in animal fighting 
ventures felonies to be charged under Title 18. It authorizes 
jail time of up to 2 years for violations of Federal animal 
fighting law doubling the current misdemeanor penalty of up to 
1 year.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Since the misdemeanor penalty for animal fighting was 
codified in Federal law in 1976, Federal authorities have 
pursued fewer than a half dozen animal fighting cases. The USDA 
has received innumerable tips from informants and requests to 
assist with state and local prosecutions.\1\ In fact, the 
animal fighting industry continues to thrive within the United 
States despite 50 state laws that ban dogfighting and 48 state 
laws that ban cockfighting.\2\ Numerous nationally circulated 
animal fighting magazines still promote these cruel practices 
and advertise fighting animals and the accouterments of animal 
fighting. There are also several active websites for animal 
fighting enthusiasts, and paid lobbyists advocating animal 
fighters' interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Human Society of the United States, Fact Sheet in Support of S. 
736 & H.R. 1532, 2003.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two years ago, Congress enacted amendments to the Animal 
Welfare Act which took effect on May 14, 2003. Under those 
amendments, it was no longer legal to knowingly sell, buy, 
transport, deliver, or receive a bird or other animal in 
interstate or foreign commerce for the purposes of 
participation in an animal fighting venture such as 
cockfighting or dog fighting. This change closed a loophole 
that allowed shipment of birds from a state where cockfighting 
is illegal to a state where it is legal. However, the 
amendments did not increase penalties.
    Since that time, the reluctance to bring cases has 
continued. H.R. 4264, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition 
Enforcement Act of 2004,'' addresses that problem by increasing 
the penalties. The primary reason for this law is to give 
prosecutors a greater incentive to pursue these cases.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held in the Committee on the Judiciary on 
H.R.4264.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 23, 2004, the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R.4264, with an 
amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On 
September 30, 2004, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R.4264, with an 
amendment, by a recorded vote of 18 to 8, a quorum being 
present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R.4264:
    1. The motion to report H.R. 4264 favorably, as amended, 
was adopted by a vote of 18 yeas to 8 noes.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             18               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 4264, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, October 6, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4264, the ``Animal 
Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. 
Mehlman, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 4264--Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004.
    H.R. 4264 would make buying, selling, or transporting 
animals for participation in animal fighting ventures (defined 
as any event which involves a fight between at least two 
animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or 
entertainment) a felony crime. Because those prosecuted and 
convicted under this legislation could be subject to criminal 
fines, the government might collect additional fines if the 
bill is enacted. Collections of such fines are recorded in the 
budget as revenues, which are deposited in the Crime Victims 
Fund and later spent. However, because of the small number of 
cases likely to be involved, CBO expects that any impact on 
revenues and direct spending would be insignificant.
    In addition, CBO expects that any increase in federal costs 
for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations 
also would be insignificant and subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    H.R. 4262 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S. 
Mehlman, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was 
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
H.R.4264 will help to discourage interstate transport of 
animals and instruments for animal fighting.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
Sec. 1. Short title.
    This section establishes the short title of the bill as the 
``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004.''
Section 2. Enforcement of Animal Fighting Prohibitions
    This section amends Title 18 to make it a crime for any 
individual to knowingly sponsor, buy, sell, deliver or 
transport animals for participation in animal fighting 
ventures. Any person who violates this section shall be fined 
under this title or imprisoned for not more than 2 years for 
each such violation.
    Additionally, this section makes it a crime for an 
individual to use the postal service or other interstate 
instrumentality for promoting an animal fighting venture or for 
selling, buying, or delivering in interstate or foreign 
commerce a knife, gaff, or any other sharp instrument attached 
or intended to be attached to the leg of a bird for use in an 
animal fighting venture.
    This bill expressly provides that this section will not 
supersede or otherwise invalidate any State, local or municipal 
legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures.
    To eliminate any confusion, the legislation repeals the 
Title 7 provisions providing for a 1-year penalty for the 
activity described above, which will now be contained in Title 
18.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              CHAPTER 3--ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND PLANTS

Sec.
41.  Hunting, fishing, trapping; disturbance or injury on wildlife 
          refuges.
     * * * * * * *
49.  Animal fighting prohibition.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 49. Animal fighting prohibition

    (a) Sponsoring or Exhibiting an Animal in an Animal 
Fighting Venture.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly 
        sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting 
        venture, if any animal in the venture was moved in 
        interstate or foreign commerce.
            (2) Special rule for certain states.--With respect 
        to fighting ventures involving live birds in a State 
        where it would not be in violation of the law, it shall 
        be unlawful under this subsection for a person to 
        sponsor or exhibit a bird in the fighting venture only 
        if the person knew that any bird in the fighting 
        venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, 
        transported, or received in interstate or foreign 
        commerce for the purpose of participation in the 
        fighting venture.
    (b) Buying, Selling, Delivering, or Transporting Animals 
for Participation in Animal Fighting Venture.--It shall be 
unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or 
deliver, or receive for purposes of transportation, in 
interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal for 
purposes of having the dog or other animal participate in an 
animal fighting venture.
    (c) Use of Postal Service or Other Interstate 
Instrumentality for Promoting Animal Fighting Venture.--It 
shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail 
service of the United States Postal Service or any 
instrumentality of interstate commerce for commercial speech 
promoting an animal fighting venture except as performed 
outside the limits of the States of the United States.
    (d) Violation of State Law.--Notwithstanding subsection 
(c), the activities prohibited by such subsection shall be 
unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds 
only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be 
in violation of the laws thereof.
    (e) Sharp Instruments.--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.
    (f) Penalties.--Any person who violates subsection (a), 
(b), (c), or (e) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
for not more than 2 years, or both, for each such violation.
    (g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            (1) the term ``animal fighting venture'' means any 
        event which involves a fight between at least two 
        animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, 
        wagering, or entertainment except that the term 
        ``animal fighting venture'' shall not be deemed to 
        include any activity the primary purpose of which 
        involves the use of one or more animals in hunting 
        another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, 
        raccoon, or fox hunting;
            (2) 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;
            (3) the term ``State'' means any State of the 
        United States, the District of Columbia, the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or 
        possession of the United States; and
            (4) the term ``animal'' means any live bird, or any 
        live dog or other mammal, except man.
    (h) Conflict With State Law.--The provisions of this 
section do not supersede or otherwise invalidate any such 
State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance relating to 
animal fighting ventures except in case of a direct and 
irreconcilable conflict between any requirements thereunder and 
this section or any rule, regulation, or standard hereunder.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  SECTION 26 OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT

    Sec. 26. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(e) Penalties.--Any person who violates subsection (a), 
(b), or (c) shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned 
for not more than 1 year, or both, for each such violation.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next item on the agenda is H.R. 
4264, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 
2004.'' The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security, for a motion.
    Mr. Coble. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security reports 
favorably the bill, H.R. 4264, with a single amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. It moves its favorable recommendation 
to the full House.
    This bill, Mr. Chairman, was unanimously approved by the 
Subcommittee. I am a cosponsor.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the 
Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute which the 
Members have before them will be considered as read, considered 
as the original text for purposes of amendment, and then open 
for amendment at any point.
    [The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, to strike the last word.
    Mr. Coble. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on September 
23 this Subcommittee held a markup on this bill, the ``Animal 
Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004.'' No substantial 
changes have been made to the bill as Members on both sides of 
the aisle have recognized the need for appropriate penalties to 
curb the vicious practice of animal fighting.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield for a brief 
statement to the primary sponsor of the bill, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be 
very brief. I want to thank the Chairman of both the full 
Committee and the Subcommittee as well as the Ranking Members 
of the full Committee and the Subcommittee for supporting this 
legislation. I also want to thank the Humane Society of the 
U.S. and my colleague Mr. Gallegly for his hard work on this 
bill. This bill has very broad bipartisan cosponshorship.
    Dog fighting and cock fighting are obviously barbaric 
practices that involve putting animals together in a fight to 
the death for alleged entertainment and gambling purposes. The 
animals are typically given drugs to make them hyper aggressive 
and are forced to continue fighting even after suffering 
grievous harm.
    Our legislation does not change anything for the States 
that do allow animal fighting, but would create felony 
penalties for the interstate sale, purchase, transportation or 
delivery of dogs, birds or other animals for the purpose of 
participation in an animal fighting venture.
    Over 150 local police and sheriffs departments from across 
the country have called on Congress to enact this legislation, 
and they want the Federal Government to step up to the plate 
and join with them in cracking down on illegal dog fighting and 
cock fighting, which so often involve interstate participants.
    The National Chicken Council has also endorsed this 
legislation because it also considers cock fighting to be an 
inhumane practice. It is also concerned with the nationwide 
traffic in game birds, that it creates a continuing hazard for 
the dissemination of animal diseases. This bill will not only 
help stop the inhuman practice of dog fighting and cock 
fighting but will help to ensure the health of our poultry 
industry.
    I thank the Chairman for his consideration and urge 
approval.
    Mr. Coble. I reclaim my time and yield back.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I move to strike 
the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 
markup on H.R. 4264, the Animal Fighting Prohibition 
Enforcement Act. For the reasons stated previously, Mr. 
Chairman, I am a cosponsor of the bill and urge my colleagues 
to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members' 
opening statements will appear in the record at this point.
    Are there amendments?
    Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from California, Mr. 
Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman, I didn't have an amendment. I 
just wanted to make sure my statement as the sponsor of the 
bill, cosponsor of the bill, be made a part of the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members' 
opening statements may appear in the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in 
                 Congress From the State of California
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. More than 150 local police and sheriff's 
departments have requested this legislation and I am pleased that the 
Committee is considering it.
    A few years ago, Congress enacted legislation to tighten federal 
law and close some loopholes that were allowing animal fighting to 
thrive nationwide, in spite of bans in virtually every state.
    But Congress didn't finish the job. We left in place weak penalties 
that have proven ineffective. Misdemeanor penalties simply don't 
provide a meaningful deterrent. Those involved in animal fighting 
ventures--where thousands of dollars typically change hands in the 
associated gambling activity--consider misdemeanor penalties a ``slap 
on the wrist'' or merely a ``cost of doing business.'' Moreover, we've 
heard from U.S. Attorneys that they are reluctant to pursue animal 
fighting cases with just a misdemeanor penalty.
    In recent years, we are seeing 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 
traffic, and acts of human violence.
    In addition, there are concerns 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,'' according to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman.
    It is time Congress finishes the job and helps state and local law 
enforcement officials who have requested a strengthening of federal 
laws to rid animal fighting from communities that do not want it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
    Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner.  Gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I went through this 
discussion when I was in the legislature in Iowa and I see this 
bill come up today, and I speak in opposition to this ``strike 
all'' amendment and on the basis of the 10th amendment it does 
step on States rights. The States have laws that address this, 
and I believe they are adequate. I think this legislation is 
unnecessary.
    But the real foundation for it is the nature of dogs and 
roosters is that they do fight, whether they are hunting dogs 
or what they might be, and I don't support that and it doesn't 
happen in my district that I know. But I do support the 10th 
amendment. And furthermore, the issues that have been 
constitutionalized by our seated Supreme Court, one of those is 
the things that are decided to be a constitutional right that 
can be done to babies in the process of being born, struggling 
babies in the process of being born. And if we can outlaw 
something like this and constitutionalize a behavior to people 
the way we do, I think it diminishes human life, and for that 
reason I will be opposing this bill.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments?
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Watt. Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. I just wanted to take a minute or two to 
acknowledge the irony of the selective support for States 
rights in this Committee on the part of some people. I actually 
agree that this is a stretch to be using interstate commerce as 
a means to get into something that the Federal Government has 
not been involved in. But it would be great if the support for 
the 10th amendment were a lot more uniform and consistent when 
it was actually a lot more meaningful. And so while I agree 
with the gentleman who just spoke, I am hoping that on some 
occasions where it really has some more practical and 
meaningful benefit, he will join the States Rights Caucus, and 
consistently be a member of the States Rights Caucus.
    Mr. Gallegly. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yeah, I am happy to yield to Mr. 
Delahunt and then I am happy to yield to----
    Mr. Delahunt. I just want to echo your sentiments about the 
good news coming from the other side. I am glad to hear that at 
least the 10th amendment is being respected as it applies to 
roosters. And with that I will yield back to my friend.
    Mr. Watt. It doesn't seem to be respected when it applies 
to individuals very much, I can tell you that. Did Mr. Gallegly 
want me to yield to him? I will be happy to yield to you.
    Mr. Gallegly. Yes. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
would like to just respond to your comment about how the 
Federal Government--your reticence to maybe get the Federal 
Government more involved in this and to create a law. The fact 
remains there is Federal law on this very act right now. The 
fact is that it is a misdemeanor and the U.S. Attorney is not 
nearly as apt to prosecute on misdemeanors as we would be able 
to do.
    Mr. Watt. I appreciate the gentleman pointing that out to 
me. Had I been here when that passed I probably would have 
taken the same position. If you follow the theory that every 
time something moves in interstate commerce the Federal 
Government has the prerogative to control it, there really 
won't be any States rights anymore. And I guess that is you 
all's theory when it comes to federalizing tort standards, too. 
Some scalpel or knife or device that was used in an operation 
in an operating room in a State moved in interstate commerce. 
So therefore, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to 
take over the whole territory.
    And I just--I think, you know, I don't have any real 
problem with the substance of the bill. But we don't do 
ourselves much good to assume that State legislators are not 
smart enough to handle cock fighting in States. I mean, you 
know, States have the prerogative to control some things in 
this country, and we should respect that prerogative and we 
should do it a heck of a lot more consistently than my 
colleagues on your side of the aisle seem to be willing to do 
it.
    You know, it is one thing to do it for chickens. I just 
wish you would do it for people. And I am happy to yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman, I know that we are trying to get 
through this hearing, but I think that an important point that 
Mr. King made was missed. And he talked about the irony of what 
Mr. King said and the inconsistency. I think what Mr. King said 
was he was pointing out the irony and the inconsistency that we 
are going to make it a felony to protect chickens when we 
permit unborn children to be killed. And I think that was his 
point as I saw it, and I think he made his point well, that if 
we are going to set priorities it is ironic that we would 
actually put and make it a felony to take the life of a 
chicken. And I don't know how many cocks or chickens have been 
killed in all this, but I would say that we have made no 
attempt, and we, as he said, we permit a child within months of 
its being born when it is very much alive to be taken.
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. I think that is quite a bit more ironic and 
inconsistent and really immoral.
    Mr. Gallegly. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. I would yield.
    Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
just like to clarify your comment about protecting children 
versus protecting animals. There are many of us that have voted 
our entire career to protect the lives of unborn children that 
are supporting this bill, and I think that we are--you know, 
people have to stand up and be accountable for how they vote on 
each one. So let's not mix apples and oranges.
    Mr. Bachus. I would yield to the gentleman from California. 
I am not mixing anything. What I am saying is that his point 
was very well made. And for Mr. King to be accused of saying 
something that doesn't make any sense.
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. Something that was ironic was what he said and 
that was inconsistent, he was very consistent in what he said 
in pointing out the inconsistency and it is tremendously 
ironic. Probably the most ironic thing about our laws today 
that we are going to make it a felony to protect chickens.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. And we yet--the same Committee that rushes to 
do that--and I am not saying that you don't have a right to do 
that--that they refuse to protect unborn children. And I very 
much want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. King. I 
think of anything said this morning he makes more sense than 
anybody.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. I would yield.
    Mr. Watt. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I don't 
think you ever heard me say Mr. King said anything insane.
    Mr. Bachus. No, you said ironic and inconsistent.
    Mr. Watt. Well, I didn't even say it was inconsistent in 
this particular case where States rights--I agree with him on 
the States rights issue. My problem is that he has been very 
selective and all of you have been very selective in your 
support of the 10th amendment and States rights.
    Mr. Bachus. Well, I would say okay.
    Mr. Watt. That is the only point I am making.
    Mr. Bachus. Well, I will take back my time and say this. 
Selectivity is exactly what we are talking about here. We have 
selected to protect the rights of cocks and chickens and not 
the right of a child who is 3 months away from being born. And 
with that I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Wisconsin, who 
is the author of the bill.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and very briefly. I do 
not wish to debate abortion today or other important issues. I 
simply want to remind everyone that this bill does not change 
anything, does not change the law for States that do allow 
animal fighting. It focuses on animals that are transported 
across State lines. That is its sole purpose here. So I would 
like to remind everybody what the bill is about, what it is not 
about.
    The debates that we have heard are great debates. We have 
had them before. I am sure we will have them again. And with 
that I yield back to the Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments? If there are 
no amendments, the question is on----
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, may I be 
recognized?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas. Do you 
have an amendment?
    Mr. Carter. No, I do not. I would like to be recognized on 
this discussion for just a moment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say 
that something concerns me very much in this is the fact that 
we every day talk about the lack of resources and the strain we 
place on the law enforcement resources of the United States, 
our border patrol, our Federal FBI and all these other folks 
that we have in the enforcement positions that have to go out 
and enforce the laws. And I think this is way beyond the scope 
of what we ought to be dealing with, making it a felony for 
somebody to be dealing with chickens and dogs. And whether or 
not I feel sorry for the chickens and dogs is immaterial. It is 
a stretch to say we are going to make a felony out of this. You 
know, it is against the law, used to be against the law in 
Texas to pick pecans off an interstate highway. That could be 
argued to involve interstate commerce. Are we going to make 
picking pecans off interstate highways a felony? At some point 
in time we have to be serious about that.
    Mr. Green. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Carter. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments? Without 
objection, the Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute laid down as the base text is adopted. A reporting 
quorum is present.
    The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 
4264 favorably, as amended. All in favor will say aye. Opposed 
no. The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote will be ordered. 
All those in favor of reporting the bill, H.R. 4264, favorably, 
as amended, will as your names are called answer aye. Those 
opposed no, and the Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk.Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes no.
    Mr. Cannon.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus votes no.
    Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler votes no.
    Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes aye.
    Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller votes aye.
    Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart votes aye.
    Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake votes no.
    Mr. Pence.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes votes aye.
    Mr. King.
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King votes no.
    Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter votes no.
    Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney votes no.
    Mrs. Blackburn.
    Mrs. Blackburn. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn votes aye.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes aye.
    Mr. Berman.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes aye.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Pass.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee passes.
    Ms. Waters.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan passes.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt passes.
    Mr. Wexler.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk.Mr. Schiff.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the chamber who wish to 
cast or change their votes?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. How am I recorded, Mr. Chairman?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee is recorded as a 
pass.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their votes? If not--the gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. It all counts the same whether 
there is conviction or not.
    Further Members who wish to cast or change their votes. 
Gentleman--other gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman, I am going to join my 
distinguished colleague from Massachusetts in voting aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Anybody else? Gentlewoman from 
California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 ayes and 8 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The motion to report favorably is 
agreed to. Without objection, the bill will be reported 
favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, incorporating the amendment here today.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, 
and all Members will be given 2 days as provided by the House 
rules in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, 
or minority views.

                                 
