Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT -- (House of Representatives - November 13, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

In recent years, some animal rights activist groups have employed violence and intimidation against enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products for food, agriculture, research testing or entertainment uses. In 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was enacted to provide additional authority to prosecute extremists whose attacks create damages or research losses of at least $10,000.

However, the last several years have seen an increase in the number and the severity of criminal acts and intimidation against those engaged in animal enterprises. These groups have attacked not only employees of companies conducting research, but also those with any remote link to such research or activities. This has included employees of banks, underwriters, insurance companies, investors, university research facilities, and even the New York Stock Exchange.

Victims have experienced threatening letters, e-mails and phone calls, repeated organized protests at their homes and the blanketing of their neighborhoods with defamatory literature. Some of the more violent acts by these groups include arson, pouring acid on cars, mailing razor blades, and defacing victims' homes.

Many of the actions that the groups have engaged in are not addressed by the current animal enterprise terrorism statute, 18 United States Code 43. This legislation would expand the reach of Federal criminal law to specifically address the use of force, violence or threats against not only animal enterprise organizations, but also those who do business with them. S. 3880 would make it a Federal crime to intentionally damage the property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise. The bill would also make it a criminal act to intentionally place a person or family member in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury because of their relationship with an animal enterprise.

Additionally, the legislation expands the definition of economic damage to include loss of property, the costs incurred because of a lost experiment or lost profits. It also includes a definition of the term ``economic disruption'' to mean losses or increased costs resulting from threats, acts of violence, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation against a person or entity because of their relationship with an animal enterprise. This does not include a lawful boycott.

Finally, an amendment to S. 3880 incorporated during floor consideration in the other body addresses concerns that were raised about the bill's potential impact on lawful protests. S. 3880 clarifies that nothing in this bill shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected by the first amendment, nor shall it criminalize nonviolent activities designed to change public policy or private conduct.

Before closing, I would like to recognize the efforts of my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri, who introduced a similar measure in this body and has helped raise awareness of this important issue. I believe this bill can help protect law-abiding citizens who are engaged in lawful activities such as research, farming sales, or manufacturing that involves animals or animal products.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 3880, so we may send this important legislation to the President for his signature.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The reason the bill is before us is that the current statute is drafted too narrowly and does not deal with threats by animal rights extremists in inflicting bodily harm, for example, against the publisher of Vogue magazine, because they put ads in depicting people wearing furs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my distinguished colleague from Ohio hasn't read the bill, so I will read it for him. At the end of page 7 in the Senate-passed bill, there is a subsection (e) called ``rules of construction,'' which says, in part: nothing in this section shall be construed, one, to prohibit any expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration, protected from legal prohibition by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Two, to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clause of the first amendment to the Constitution regardless of the point of view expressed or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference.

That means that if somebody wishes to peacefully protest research on animals, they can do so, as the statute, with the amendment that was adopted on the floor in the other body, specifically prohibits a prosecution for that.

Now, let's look at what the people this bill has been designed to go after have been saying:

``I don't think you would have to kill too many researchers. I think that for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save 1 million, 2 million or 10 million nonhuman lives.'' Animal Liberation Press Officer Jerry Vlasak at the 2003 National Animal Rights Conference in Los Angeles.

Second: ``Arson property destruction, burglary and theft are `acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause.'' That quote was from Alex Pacheco, who is the director of PETA.

Third: ``I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.'' That is Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA at the National Animal Rights Convention `97, June 27, 1997.

``Get arrested. Destroy the property of those who torture animals. Liberate those animals interned in the hellholes our society tolerates.'' That is Jerry Vlasak of the Animal Defense League again on an Internet post of June 21, 1996.

``We have found that civil disobedience and direct action has been powerful in generating massive attention in our communities ..... and has been very effective in traumatizing our targets.'' J.P. Goodwin, Committee to Abolish the Fur Trade at the National Animal Rights Convention in Los Angeles June 27, 1997.

Or: ``In a war you have to take up arms, and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It is a war, and there is no other way you can stop vivisectors.'' Tim Daley, British Animal Liberation Front leader.

Finally, another one from Jerry Vlasak: ``If they won't stop when you ask them nicely, they don't stop when you demonstrate to them what they are doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means are necessary.''

This bill is designed to criminalize whatever means are necessary outside the Constitution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, again, I will reread page 7, lines 10 through 21 of the bill that was passed by the other body that says nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration protected from legal prohibition by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Two, to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clause of the first amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference, unquote.

Now, what this section says is that nothing in the bill, absolutely nothing in the bill shall be construed to restrict what I have just read. This bill should pass. We should reject the red herrings that we are hearing from the gentleman from Ohio and other opponents.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just like to sum up that on October 30 the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my ranking member, and myself, not opposing this legislation. They did ask for minor changes, but they did not express one concern about constitutionally protected first amendment rights being infringed upon or jeopardized in any way by this bill.

Now, if there ever was an organization that really goes all the way on one side in interpreting the first amendment as liberally as it can, it is the American Civil Liberties Union. My friend from Ohio, whom I have a great respect for, is even outside the definition of the first amendment that the ACLU has eloquently advanced in the halls of this Capitol for decades and will do so for decades to come.

This is a good bill. I think that all of the fears that the gentleman from Ohio has placed on the record are ill-founded by practically everybody who has looked through this bill, including the ACLU. All I need to do is go back to the quotes that I cited a couple of minutes ago to show why this bill is vitally necessary.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/