[House Report 110-27]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Rept. 110-27
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 1
======================================================================
ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007
_______
March 1, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 137]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 137) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 2
Committee Consideration.......................................... 2
Vote of the Committee............................................ 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 3
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 4
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 4
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 4
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 4
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 5
Dissenting Views................................................. 8
The Amendment
The amendment (stated in terms of the page and line numbers
of the introduced bill) is as follows:
Page 4, beginning in line 13, strike ``or animals, such as
water-fowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting''.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 137, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act
of 2007,'' strengthens the Federal prohibitions against animal
fighting ventures. Under current law, animal fighting
violations are misdemeanors under title 7 of the U.S. Code.
H.R. 137 makes the buying, selling, or transporting of animals
in interstate commerce for participation in animal fighting
ventures felonies to be charged under title 18, with maximum
prison sentences of 3 years, increased from 1 year under
current law.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Prohibitions against knowingly selling, buying,
transporting, delivering, or receiving an animal in interstate
or foreign commerce for the purposes of participation in an
animal fighting venture were added to the Animal Welfare Act in
1976, with misdemeanor penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and
up to 1 year in prison. Since then, Federal authorities have
pursued fewer than a half dozen animal fighting cases, despite
receiving numerous tips from informants and requests to assist
with state and local prosecutions. 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. 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.
In 2002, Congress amended these prohibitions to extend them
more fully to live birds. Previously, none of the prohibitions
had applied to live birds if the destination was a State in
which their use in fighting was not a violation of that State's
law.
While the 2002 amendments also increased penalties
slightly, from a potential fine of $5,000 to one of $15,000,
they were left at the misdemeanor level. By increasing
penalties to the felony level, H.R. 137 will give prosecutors
greater incentive to pursue cases against unlawful animal
fighting ventures, and strengthen deterrence against them.
Hearings
The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
held a hearing on H.R. 137 on February 6, 2007. Testimony was
received from two witnesses: Wayne Pacelle, President & CEO,
The Humane Society of the United States, and Jerry Leber,
President, United Gamefowl Breeders Association.
Committee Consideration
On February 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered H.R. 137
favorably reported, without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum
being present. On February 7, 2007, the Committee met in open
session and ordered the bill favorably reported by voice vote,
with an amendment by Mr. King to make more general the
exception for using animals in hunting, by voice vote, 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 advises that there
were no recorded votes during consideration of H.R. 137.
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. 137, 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, February 16, 2007.
Hon. John Conyers, 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. 137, the Animal
Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark
Grabowicz (for Federal costs), and Page Piper/Bach (for the
private-sector impact).
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 137--Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007
H.R. 137 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 Federal crime. The bill also would prohibit
any person from using certain forms of communication in
interstate commerce to promote an animal fighting venture.
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. 137 contain no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments. H.R. 137 would
impose private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, but CBO
expects the cost of complying with those mandates would be
small and well below the annual threshold for private-sector
mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for
inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz
(for Federal costs), and Paige Piper/Bach (for the private-
sector impact). 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, the
purpose of the bill, H.R. 137, is to curtail the interstate
transport of animals and related instruments for purposes of
engaging in an animal fighting contest.
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, section 8 of the Constitution.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 137 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Sec. 1. Short title
This section sets forth the short title of the bill as the
``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.''
Sec. 2. Enforcement of animal fighting prohibitions
This section makes it a felony under chapter 3 of title 18,
United States Code, for any individual to knowingly exhibit,
buy, sell, deliver, or transport a bird, dog, or other animal
in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for participation in
animal fighting ventures.
Additionally, this section makes it a felony 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 other sharp instrument attached or
intended to be attached to the leg of a bird for use in an
animal fighting venture.
This section expressly provides that this legislation will
not supersede or otherwise invalidate any State, local, or
municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting
ventures. As a special rule with respect to fighting ventures
involving live birds in a State where they would not otherwise
be in violation of the law, this legislation provides that the
prohibition against the knowing sponsorship or exhibition of a
bird in a fighting venture applies only if the person knew that
any bird in the fighting venture was knowingly bought, sold,
delivered, transported, or received in inter-state or foreign
commerce for the purpose of participation in the fighting
venture.
The section provides that any person who violates it shall
be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than three
(3) years, or both, for each violation.
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 italic, 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 3 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;
(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
ANIMAL FIGHTING
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.]
DISSENTING VIEWS
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.'' I believe the Committee
erred in their judgment and subsequent approval of H.R. 137.
H.R. 137 seeks to make it a three-year federal felony to
transport a chicken across state lines for the purpose of
exhibiting it in a fight. Currently, 48 states already have
laws on the books to address this issue.
H.R. 137 is being driven by animal rights activists. Issues
involving animals belong before the Committee on Agriculture,
not the Committee on the Judiciary. Yet, animal rights
activists have crafted this legislation to take jurisdiction of
animal welfare concerns from the Agriculture Committee, which
has jurisdiction over Title 7, and put it in Title 18, which is
under jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. This maneuver
gives animal rights activists the ability to ruin animal
agriculture in the United States through poorly drafted laws
that purport to be for animal welfare. In reality, these laws
seek to over regulate animal agriculture in the United States,
bit by bit. This will ultimately hurt animal agriculture in the
United States and put family farms out of business. The
Agriculture Committee, not the Judiciary Committee has the
resident expertise in animal welfare. The Agriculture Committee
is competent to ensure that our federal laws prohibit all
animal cruelty.
More importantly, I believe that it diminishes human life
if we make it a felony to transport animals for fighting, but
it is not a felony to take a girl across a state line for an
abortion. It is a strong conviction of mine to fight for the
sanctity of life, and while I believe that it is important that
we are humane in how we treat animals, I do not believe that we
should put their welfare ahead of unborn humans.
I oppose making animal fighting a three year felony because
it degrades the value of human life. 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 make this
abhorrent activity, which exploits a young woman and kills her
child, a misdemeanor. This legislation has still not become law
yet, but it is a step forward in the right direction toward
protecting innocent human life.
I believe that we should not value animal life over human
life. It makes no sense that killing a person is a misdemeanor
if transporting animals to a fight is a felony.
My home state Iowa is an agricultural state. We understand
the importance of animal husbandry and being good stewards 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 opposed this legislation because animals should
not be put before humans and animal welfare concerns belong
before the Agriculture Committee.
For these reasons I disagree with the action of the
Committee today which is why I voted No in the voice vote to
report H.R. 137 from Committee.
Steve King.