Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3880 is a companion bill to H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. It reflects a compromise bill arrived at after considerable effort of a bipartisan group involving both House and Senate Judiciary Committee staff over several months.

From hearings in the House and from other reports, we have learned that current Federal law designed to protect animal enterprises have been proven to be reasonably effective in protecting animal enterprises. However, serious gaps and loopholes have been identified in current law with respect to protecting employees and associates of animal enterprises. Present law protects employees of an animal enterprise, but we have found that employees, board members and family members of businesses and nonprofits affiliated with or doing business with such enterprises are complaining that they are now being stalked, harassed, intimidated or threatened, with some individuals even being physically assaulted, and had their homes, businesses or cars vandalized. Since the Animal Enterprise Terrorism law was enacted in 1992, there have been some 1,100 complaints of such incidents, with property losses reported of being more than $120 million. Those complaining include farmers, scientists, biomedical and biotechnology industries, research universities, teaching hospitals, financial institutions, magazines, newspapers and other advertising groups and others who are viewed as assisting or enabling targeted animal enterprises.

The evidence is that in many instances extremist elements among the animal rights groups are taking advantage of the fact that the animal enterprise laws do not cover affiliates and associates by using threats, harassment, intimidation and fear and other extreme tactics to pressure them into severing their activities with such enterprises.

S. 3880 is designed to cover these gaps or loopholes by providing to employees, businesses and associates of animal enterprises similar protections to those already covered. In other words, the bill prevents a person from doing indirectly to an animal enterprise what they are prohibited to do directly.

Now, citizens engaging in legitimate animal enterprise activities and anyone associated with them are entitled to be protected from criminal acts and to be able to go about their daily activities free from threats to their person or property and that of their family and associates. State laws are generally good at providing those protections. However, the interstate nature of the planning and execution of the criminal harassment tactics used by some individuals or groups skilled at exploiting gaps or weaknesses in the laws have made it difficult for States to get at problems effectively. That is why this bill is deemed necessary.

While we must protect those engaged in animal enterprises, we must also protect the right of those engaged in first amendment freedoms of expression regarding such enterprises. It goes without saying that first amendment freedoms of expression cannot be defeated by statute. However, to reassure anyone concerned with the intent of this legislation, we have added in the bill assurances that it is not intended as a restraint on freedoms of expression such as lawful boycotting, picketing or otherwise engaging in lawful advocacy for animals.

[Page: H8592]

In addition, we also wanted to recognize that there are some who conscientiously believe that it is their duty to peacefully protest the operation of animal enterprises to the extent of engaging in civil disobedience. If a group's intention were to stage a sit-in or lie-down or to block traffic to a targeted facility, they certainly run the risk of arrest for whatever traffic, trespass or other laws they may be breaking. But they should not be held more accountable for business losses due to causes such as delivery trucks being delayed any more than a boycott or protest against any other business.

To violate the provision of the bill, one must travel or otherwise engage in interstate activity with the intent to cause damage or loss to an animal enterprise. While the losses of profits, lab experiments or other intangible losses are included, it must be proved that such losses were specifically intended for the law to be applied. If there is no damage or economic loss, or damage or loss is less than $10,000, the offense is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

This bill does not satisfy everyone, but it does represent a reasonable compromise in protecting employees and associates of animal enterprises while avoiding violation of first amendment freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/