<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27742.wais]
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 4239
__________
MAY 23, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-125
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2006
27-742 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida MAXINE WATERS, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Michael Volkov, Chief Counsel
David Brink, Counsel
Caroline Lynch, Counsel
Jason Cervenak, Full Committee Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 23, 2006
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 1
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Brent McIntosh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United
States Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Ms. Michele Basso, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of
Physiology, University of Wisconsin
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Mr. William Trundley, Vice President, Global Corporate Security
and Investigations, GlaxoSmithKline
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Mr. William Potter, Journalist
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 37
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas............. 40
Prepared Statement of the Honorable James Inhofe, U.S. Senator,
Committee on Environment and Public Works...................... 42
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Thomas E. Petri, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin......... 44
Prepared Statement of Mr. Frankie L. Trull, President, National
Association for Biomedical Research............................ 46
Prepared Statement of Dr. Bruce R. Bistrian, President of the
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB)........................................................ 51
Prepared Statement of Mr. Mark L. Bibi, General Counsel, Life
Sciences Research.............................................. 60
Prepared Statement of Ms. Gale Davy, Executive Director,
Wisconsin Association for Biomedical Research & Education...... 63
Prepared Statement of Mr. Keith Kaplan, Executive Director, Fur
Information Council of America................................. 66
Prepared Statement of Mr. Wesley J. Smith, J.D., Senior Fellow,
Discovery Institute............................................ 70
Prepared Statement of Mr. James C. Greenwood, President and CEO,
Biotechnology Industry Organization............................ 79
Prepared Statement of the California Healthcare Institute (CHI).. 83
Results of Preliminary Survey of Threat Posed by Animal Rights
Extremists, Conducted by the California Healthcare Institute
(CHI).......................................................... 86
Letter to the Honorable Howard Coble from the Animal Enterprise
Protection Coalition (AEPC).................................... 87
Letter from F2 Chemicals Ltd..................................... 90
Letter to the Subcommittee on Crime Terrrorism, and Homeland
Security from Dr. Amanda Carson Banks, President and CEO, the
California Biomedical Research Association..................... 93
Letter to the U.S. Committee on Animal Rights Extremism from Mrs.
Wendy Bantin................................................... 95
Top 20 List of Illegal Actions by Animal and Eco-Terrorists,
1996-2006, Complied by the Foundation for Biomedical Research.. 96
News Article, Animal research does not validate trespass......... 103
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard
Coble (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Coble. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Today the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security is conducting a legislative hearing on H.R. 4239, the
``Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act,'' which was introduced on
November 4, 2005, by several of our colleagues. And the lead
sponsor is the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin Mr.
Petri, whom I recognize in the audience today, along with
Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Representatives Issa, McCotter,
Cannon, Bonilla, Calvert, Otter, Boren, Blackburn and
Doolittle.
H.R. 4239 was introduced in response to a growing threat
commonly referred to as ecoterrorism. While we are still
responding to the threat about international terrorism, groups
of impassioned animal supporters have unfortunately employed
tactics to disrupt animal research and related businesses by
terrorizing their employees. Today's testimony will detail what
employees have come to fear, but it is safe to say that their
fear is real and justified.
This practice originated with protests against companies
conducting animal research. The protests became violent, and as
they continue in severity, they are now being focused on
employees of businesses with any remote relationship to the
primary research. The range of potential victims includes
employees of banking, insurance, securities and pharmaceutical
companies, and even universities.
Dr. Tom O'Connor of North Carolina Wesleyan College teaches
a course on the different types of terrorism. According to Dr.
O'Connor, and I quote, ``Ecoterrorism involves extremist views
on environmental issues and animal rights, and is a fringe-
issue form of terrorism aimed primarily at inflicting economic
damage on those seen as profiting from the destruction and
exploitation of the environment,'' closed quote. Dr. O'Connor
distinguishes the environmentalist movement from the more
extreme ecoterrorists in this way, and again I quote, quote,
``Environmentalists work within the system for preservation,
and ecoterrorists seem to want to destroy civilization as we
know it in order to save the planet,'' closed quote.
Because many of these acts are not considered an offense
under the current animal enterprise terrorism statute, that is,
18 U.S. Code 43, H.R. 4239 would expand the reach of the animal
enterprise terrorism statute to specifically include the use of
force, violence or threats against entities that do business
with animal enterprise organizations. Specifically, the
legislation would prohibit the international damaging of
property--or strike that--the intentional damaging of property
of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with
or transactions with an animal enterprise, and make it a
criminal act to intentionally place a person in reasonable fear
of death or serious bodily injury to that person or his or her
family because of his or her relationship with the animal
enterprise.
Since the bill has been introduced, the Committee has been
approached by a couple of groups with concerns about ensuring
first amendment protections that are included for lawful
protests, boycotts and other activities. The legislation was
not intended to infringe on these rights in any way.
Accordingly, a manager's amendment clarifying that those rights
will continue to be protected was included in Members' packets
and will be introduced at a subsequent markup on which Members
can cast their votes.
I have received numerous statements to be entered into the
record in support of this bill, including statements from the
House and Senate sponsors of this legislation, Representative
Petri, who I mentioned earlier, and Senator Inhofe, the
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma.
And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and
especially would like to thank Dr. Michele Basso and Bill
Trundley for their willingness to testify about their
experiences.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Petri follows in the
Appendix]
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows in the
Appendix]
Mr. Coble. At this time I am pleased to recognize the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the Ranking Member of
this Subcommittee, Mr. Bobby Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you for holding a markup on H.R. 4239, the ``Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act.'' Apparently, our current Federal law that was
designed to protect businesses and employees in animal
enterprises are doing a pretty good job. However, many of these
businesses and employees are now complaining that other
businesses and nonprofits and their employees, board members
and family members with whom they are affiliated are being
stalked, harassed, intimidated. They have had their businesses,
homes or cars vandalized, and some individuals even physically
assaulted.
Indications are that animal rights groups that have used
extreme tactics to press their point of view were taking
advantage of the fact that animal enterprise laws do not cover
these types of secondary relationships to wage a campaign of
threats, harassment, intimidation and fear-mongering in an
effort to have them sever their relationships with targeted
animal enterprises. This bill was designed to cover these
perceived gaps or loopholes in the current animal enterprise
protection laws.
Citizens engaging in lawful activities as well as those
associated with them are entitled to be protected from criminal
acts and to be able to go about their lawful 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 conduct of these criminal and harassment
tactics by groups skilled at avoiding the laws make it
difficult for States to effectively get at some of the
problems, and that is what the bill is designed to cover.
While we must protect those engaged in lawful animal
enterprises, we must also protect the right of those engaged in
their first amendment freedoms and expressions regarding such
enterprises. The issue was acknowledged and addressed in the
bill. However, we received concerns that protections do not go
far enough to ensure that first amendment freedoms are not
compromised.
I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of your proposals to further
improvements in this area, and I want to work with you to
ensure that we provide the protections of lawful activities
that are needed here without jeopardizing first amendment
freedoms. Included in those freedoms, Mr. Chairman, is a right
to engage in peaceful civil disobedience, and I'm not sure the
proposals adequately take that into account. If a group's
intention were to stage a sit-down, 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 are
breaking, but they should not be held any more accountable for
business losses due to delivery trucks being delayed any more
than anyone else guilty of such activities.
I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the bill treats
conspiracies and attempts the same as a completion of an
offense. While someone who has not completed an offense solely
because they were caught by law enforcement before the
completion should not be rewarded, I believe we should also
encourage potential offenders to change their mind at any time.
Insisting that offenders who decide not to go through with an
offense will get the same sentence as if they had only helps
ringleaders or others promote the philosophy that if I am going
to be shot for being a wolf, I might as well eat the sheep.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to testimony by witnesses
to see how we can strike a proper balance between protecting
lawful activities and our first amendment freedoms. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
[The information referred to follows in the Appendix]
Mr. Coble. Lady and gentlemen, it is the practice of the
Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses appearing before it, so
if you would, please, stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Coble. Let the record show that the witnesses answered
in the affirmative. And you may be seated.
We have a distinguished panel today. Ladies and gentlemen,
we are glad to welcome the rest of you in the audience as well.
Our first witness is Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brent
McIntosh. Mr. McIntosh is a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
in the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal
Policy. Prior to joining the Justice Department, Mr. McIntosh
was an attorney with the New York law firm of Sullivan and
Cornwell. He also served as a law clerk for the United States
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mr. McIntosh was awarded an undergraduate degree from the
University of Michigan and holds a J.D. from Yale University.
Our second witness is Dr. Michele Basso. Dr. Basso is an
assistant professor with the University of Wisconsin's
Department of Physiology, Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences.
Dr. Basso's current emphasis is on understanding normal brain
mechanisms controlling complex behaviors and how these
mechanisms go awry in movement-disordered states. This research
seeks to reveal the neurophysiological underpinnings of
movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, Huntingdon's
disease and dystonia. Her research is highly coordinated with
practicing clinicians, and in some instances uses animal
models, in particular the rhesus monkey. Dr. Basso received her
doctorate from SUNY in Stony Brook.
Ophthalmologist, I just wanted to make sure I can say it,
Doctor.
Our third witness is Mr. William Trundley, Vice President
of Corporate Security and Investigations for GlaxoSmithKline.
Mr. Trundley has global responsibility for a range of areas,
including countering extremist activity against the company and
its employees, product security, protection of personnel
information and assets, security risk analysis and
investigations.
Mr. Trundley has served for 24 years as a major with the
Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch during which
time he undertook a variety of assignments in several overseas
areas, including Europe, North America and the Far East. Mr.
Trundley holds an M.S. from Western University and a United
States diploma in security management.
Our final witness today, Mr. William Potter. Mr. Potter is
a freelance reporter based in Washington, D.C., and has focused
attention on animal rights and environmental activists whose
activities result in prosecutions and the civil rights
implications involved. He has written for publications
including the Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning News, Legal
Affairs, The Chronicle of Higher Education, In These Times, The
Texas Observer, The Washington City Paper, Z and CounterPunch.
Mr. Potter was graduated summa cum laude from the University of
Texas at Austin with a degree in journalism.
We've been privileged to be joined by the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Delahunt.
So Mr. McIntosh, why don't you be our lead-off hitter
today, and we will let Mr. Potter be the clean-up hitter. And
as we have told you all previously, folks, Mr. Scott and I try
to operate under the 5-minute rule. When the amber light
appears before you on the panel, that is your warning that you
have 1 minute remaining. Now you will not be keel-hauled if you
fail to conclude in 5 minutes. When the red light appears,
that's your warning that 5 minutes have elapsed, and if you
could wrap up at that point.
Mr. McIntosh.
TESTIMONY OF BRENT McINTOSH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Scott, Congressmen. Good morning.
On behalf of the Department of Justice, I thank you for
this opportunity to testify regarding the Department's efforts
to investigate and prosecute those who threaten violence and
commit criminal acts in the name of protecting animals.
The Department remains dedicated to protecting the American
people from the threat of violence imposed by extremists, while
at the same time protecting the first amendment rights
guaranteed to all Americans.
We have had some success in prosecuting animal rights
extremists. Most recently, on March 2, 2006, six members of an
animal rights group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or
SHAC, were convicted of inciting attacks on those who worked
for or did business with Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British
company that runs an animal testing laboratory.
As demonstrated by the SHAC convictions, extremists have
not hesitated to use violence and the threat of violence to
further their social and political goals. In some cases, such
as those involving arson or explosives, Federal prosecutors are
well equipped to prosecute and punish extremists, but not all
animal rights extremists use arson and explosives.
In pursuit of its goal of closing Huntingdon Life Sciences'
animal testing operations, SHAC and its sympathizers have
employed a wide variety of harassing and intimidating
techniques which SHAC itself calls its, quote, ``top 20 terror
tactics,'' end quote, designed to terrorize SHAC's targets
while avoiding an effective law enforcement response. For
example, these violent extremists have advocated and
facilitated such direct actions as vandalizing--including fire-
bombing homes, businesses and cars--fraud and ID theft; making
bomb threats or threats to harm or kill targets, targets'
partners, targets' children.
To target these techniques, SHAC has posted on the Internet
law-abiding employees' home telephone numbers, the names of
their spouses and children, even the schools where those
children attend. In short, these extremists are engaged in a
nationwide campaign to place law-abiding citizens in a
reasonable fear of death or of serious bodily injury to
themselves or their loved ones.
Although the existing Animal Enterprise Protection Act is
an important tool for prosecutors, animal rights extremists
have tailored their campaigns to exploit limits and ambiguities
in the statute by targeting individuals and businesses
associated with the animal enterprise rather than the animal
enterprise itself. Considered individually, these actions are
State crimes, but local police often lack the investigative
resources and nationwide perspective to put these local
offenses into context as a multijurisdictional campaign of
violence. So while the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey can
prosecute some of SHAC's crimes under the existing statute,
most of the charges brought in that prosecution came under the
interstate stalking statute.
The bill under consideration today would fill gaps in the
current law, and the Department supports it. Most important, as
the Ranking Member said, the existing statute's focus on
physical disruption of the actual animal enterprise permits the
argument that it does not cover a campaign that harms the
animal enterprise, not directly, but by targeting persons and
entities that do business with an animal enterprise. H.R. 4239
would make clear that committing the proscribed conduct against
an employee of an animal enterprise or against an entity
related to an animal enterprise is equally illegal.
Before I conclude, let me spend a moment on people the
Department does not prosecute. The Department is acutely aware
of the importance of protecting the first amendment rights of
those who lawfully protest the treatment of animals. Let me say
this as clearly as I can: The Department does not prosecute and
does not wish to prosecute those who lawfully seek to persuade
others. On this issue the Department has found wide common
ground with members of the Humane Society and the ACLU. We
recently met with both groups. We all agree that any tactic or
strategy of involving violence or threats of violence is not to
be tolerated. On the other hand, we are committed to ensuring
that the law has no chilling effect on lawful activities
designed merely to persuade.
This proposed law builds on existing concepts in the
Federal Criminal Code, and as a legal matter breaks no new
ground. Still, the Department has heard the concerns of the
Humane Society and the ACLU, has seen the manager's amendment,
and is happy to work with the Subcommittee to leave no doubt
that nothing in the law prohibits any expressive conduct
protected by the first amendment.
The great majority of animal rights advocates make their
case through lawful first amendment activity, but those who
cross the line from free speech to criminal conduct should be
prosecuted and punished appropriately, and prosecutors should
have the tools to make sure that happens.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting us here today.
We thank this Subcommittee for its continued leadership and
support, and we welcome your questions.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. McIntosh. And your timing was
superb, you ended at the right time with the red light.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntosh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brent J. McIntosh
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Coble. The pressure is on you, Dr. Basso. Good to have
you with us, Dr. Basso.
TESTIMONY OF MICHELE BASSO, Ph.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Dr. Basso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott,
and other Congresspersons for the invitation to speak to you
about my experiences.
I am an assistant professor of physiology at the University
of Wisconsin. I am also an affiliate of the Wisconsin Regional
Primate Center because of my work with nonhuman primates, and
our goal is to try to understand the brain mechanisms of
Parkinson's disease, which, as you know, is a debilitating
disorder of movement.
We work together very closely with neurologists and
neurosurgeons who develop state-of-the-art techniques for
treating Parkinson's disease, and our goal is to understand how
these techniques work and how to improve them in order to
increase the quality of life for patients who suffer from
movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease.
My experience with animal rights activity began about 3
years or so ago. And two organizations at the University of
Wisconsin tried to purchase property immediately adjacent to
two of the primate centers located on campus, the Harlow Lab
and the Wisconsin Regional Primate Center. They rented it with
an option to purchase, and their mission or their goal, stated
goal, was to establish a holocaust museum for the monkeys that
were killed in the research programs going on at the Primate
Center.
The second thing was these two groups also started a
meeting on campus monthly called Primate Vivisection, A to Z,
where they talk about--or try to engage investigators to
discuss animal research and also the use of animals in
research. Because of the chancellor at the university's
commitment to free speech, of course, these programs continue
on campus, and they use university facilities.
Now, I first heard of these activists, the same groups,
with respect to a protest that took place at the University of
Wisconsin, and with targeting members of the University of
Wisconsin at their homes. I was among eight of the faculty
members and the academic staff who were targeted. Although they
went to the wrong home--they didn't have my correct address--
what they did was they appeared at homes with a truck that had
a video monitor on it displaying images of animals in cages,
and they shouted with bullhorns obscenities and defamatory
statements about the persons in the home, went and rang the
doorbell and ran away and various activity like that--
activities such as that. They also handed out fliers with my
photograph and contact information, as well as sort of
defamatory statements regarding me and my research.
So in response to this--I was very nervous and concerned
about my safety, so I tried to protect myself in two ways. The
first was I removed my name from the Internet sites where you
can go to the tax assessor's office and find out the property
that a person owns by typing in their name. So I removed that
from the Website. And the second thing I did was to hire an
attorney to quit-claim deed my house into another name so that
if someone were to go to the tax assessor's office, they would
not be able to find out where I lived or my home address.
But within 2 months' time--less than 2 months, I started to
receive magazine subscriptions. First they came slowly, but
then they came rather aggressively. I have over 50-plus
magazine subscriptions and various paraphernalia. I also
received various books, the titles of which are things like
fatal--"Oh, What a Slaughter,'' ``Fatal Burn,'' ``Predator,''
``The Perfect Orgasm,'' things like this. At the same time, I
received two phone calls, voice messages, anonymous voice
messages, through a messaging service that said something to
the effect of, Hello, Michele, we know you're a monkey killer,
and you can't get away from us. We hope you enjoy the magazines
that you are receiving. And you will never get away, even
though you tried to change the name on your house, things like
that. So there were at least two of those messages.
So I guess I can't stress the critical impact that this has
had on me and my ability to do my work. And I know that a
number of my colleagues across the country experience similar
targeting as well as more violent and aggressive--one colleague
has had their house windows broken and their yards destroyed in
California, for example.
So it's critical, also, to point out that the work that I
do is subject to very strict regulations and oversight, and we
have at least five animal care and use committees on campus
that regulate what we do. And we also abide by the 3R
principles for research: We reduce, refine or replace our
animal models whenever possible. And when we are doing that
already, we are required to justify why we don't do it even
more. So working on animals, we believe, is a privilege, and
one that we don't take lightly.
So I would like to just thank all of you for considering
this important legislation and hearing my testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Basso follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michele Basso
My name is Michele Basso. I am an Assistant Professor of Physiology
at the University of Wisconsin Madison Medical School. I am also
affiliated with the Wisconsin Regional Primate Center because my
laboratory studies primates as a model to understand Parkinson's
Disease. Our research, which is funded by the National Institutes of
Health and the Parkinson Disease Foundation, focuses on how the brain
integrates visual information to produce movement. As you all know,
Parkinson's disease is a debilitating neurodegenerative disease that is
caused by a defect in the brain's ability to correctly initiate and
control movement. I work together with neurologists and neurosurgeons
across the country who treat Parkinson's patients with state of the art
surgical therapies. In the laboratory, we use non human primates to
understand the mechanisms of action of these therapies in order to
improve them. Finally, our work on non human primates together with our
work on humans will improve the quality of life of patients suffering
from movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease.
About 3 years ago, an FBI agent opened a case for me because I
received an email from an unknown source calling me an animal killer
and equating me with Dr. Mengele, the war criminal who tortured humans
during the Nazi era. At the same time, a colleague told me that my home
address was circulating through an animal rights chat group. These
events followed a Freedom of Information Act request for my animal use
protocol, to the Director of the WI Primate Center.
Since then, animal rights activists have been active on campus.
First, the Wisconsin Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Group
rented, with an option to purchase, a piece of property immediately
adjacent to the two primate centers--The Harlow Lab and the WRPC. The
groups referred to the building as the upcoming ``Holocaust Museum''
designed to remember the monkeys killed by researchers at the two
primate centers. Second, some time around September 2005, a monthly
meeting, held on the University campus called ``Primate Vivisection
from A to Z'' began. Since the University is committed to the free
speech rights of all members of the community, the Wisconsin Alliance
for Animals and the Primate Freedom Group were granted access to
University property and facilities for these meetings. The stated
purpose of these meetings is to inform the University and surrounding
community about the research going on at the Primate Centers and to
establish a dialogue with investigators regarding the use of animals in
research. These meetings are still occurring.
In October 2005, the UW Madison police department contacted me and
informed me of an upcoming animal rights protest. I would be one of 8
University members who would be targeted at their homes.
The animal rights protest consisted of a truck with a video screen
on three sides. The screens displayed images of non human primates in
cages. The truck was parked outside people's homes and a group of
activists with bullhorns harassed the people inside the homes. The name
of the person was shouted along with accusations such as monkey killer
or animal abuser. The protestors would run to the front door, ring the
bell and run away. They circulated flyers about the individual to the
neighbors. Over the course of one week, they attended the homes of 7 of
the 8 people, the two primate center directors, one academic staff and
4 scientists. 5 of these 7 people directly targeted were female. Of the
51 non-human primate investigators on campus, only 11 of these are
women.
The activists attempted to go to my home but made a mistake and
protested in front of the wrong house. They circulated a flyer
throughout the neighborhood containing my photograph and incorrect
contact information as well as a number of misstatements regarding my
research program and personal attacks on my competency. They also wrote
with chalk on the sidewalk covering an area approximately 3 feet by 5
feet that said, ``Basso Animal Abuser''.
When people disagree they are entitled to exert their first
amendment rights. For example, if a group does not agree with a
potential legislative action, they protest at the government office or
in public squares, but not in front of private homes. Protests at
private homes serve what purpose other than to malign people and their
children, intimidate and frighten families in their homes?
After this disturbing set of events, I attempted to protect myself
by doing two things. First, anyone can go online to the tax assessor's
office web page and look up a name to find a home address. I contacted
the office and requested that they remove my name from the web site.
Second, removal from the web does not eliminate access to the
information. Anyone can still go to the office and look up personal
information. So I hired an attorney to quit claim deed my home into
another name. In this way, my name would not be associated with any
property in Madison.
In slightly less than 2 months time, I received a magazine to which
I did not subscribe. Then I received a couple more magazines. I started
to receive statements from magazine companies indicating that I placed
gift subscriptions to others on campus. I received in total
approximately 50+ magazine subscriptions and other mail-order
paraphernalia.
At the same time I received two anonymous voice messages from a
messaging agency. Both messages had very similar content and I
paraphrase: `Hello Michele, we know you are a monkey killer. We hope
you are enjoying the magazines you have been receiving. You cannot get
away from us.' The second message said the same but included a
statement like, `you cannot hide from us even though you changed the
name on your house. You will never get away from us.'
In addition to the magazine subscriptions, I received two book club
subscriptions. Each arrived with an initial shipment of hardcover
books. Some of the titles of these books include ``Fatal Burn'' ``Oh
What a Slaughter'' ``Predator'' ``The Perfect Orgasm'' and the like. As
I am sure you can appreciate, these activities take up an enormous
amount of my time. I was reported to a credit agency due to delinquency
for a magazine subscription but because the FBI is investigating these
events, I have a case number I supply to the companies to correct these
issues.
It is critical to point out that biomedical research is subject to
very strict regulations and oversight. We have an animal care and use
committee for each school at Madison and an all campus committee that
oversees all schools. My research meets or exceeds all standards set by
the USDA, Public Health Service Policy as well as local guidelines for
the care and use of non human primates in research. We abide by the
well-known 3R principle concerning the use of animals. Whenever we can,
we reduce the numbers of animals used, we replace the animal model with
some other or we refine the technique we use to ensure maximal well-
being of the animals. When we already meet the 3R requirements, we are
required to justify why we cannot reduce or refine more. Working on
animals is a privilege that neither I, nor my colleagues take lightly.
I would like to thank all of you for considering this important
legislation. I believe it is important that we protect the free speech
rights of all individuals. It is equally important for me to be able to
come and go from work and my home and not feel threatened, intimidated,
harassed or slandered. I have a right to live free of fear. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Trundley.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM TRUNDLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL CORPORATE
SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS, GLAXOSMITHKLINE
Mr. Trundley. Good morning, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member
Scott and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Bill
Trundley, and I'm the vice president of corporate security and
investigations for GlaxoSmithKline.
GSK is targeted by animal rights extremists because of our
relationship with Huntingdon Life Sciences. This is secondary
targeting. Tertiary targeting involves similar violent attacks
against companies and individuals merely because they have a
relationship with GSK.
In the past 21 months in the U.S., GSK has experienced 150
incidents, including 75 intimidating home demonstrations and 10
cases of serious damage to property, which have traumatized
employees, their families and their children. In all of these,
the common thread has been fear, intimidation and the threat of
violence, as you can see from this poster, which depicts a T-
shirt with a picture of an AK-47 assault rifle and glorifying
violence against researchers.
This other exhibit is a SHAC terror card used by extremists
to threaten employees and their families. Some of these
terrorist acts against our employees include mail theft, which
reveal the spouse's alcohol treatment program. They left a
bottle of beer at her door with a note saying, ``Have a drink,
bitch,'' and then went to her son's school to hand out this
disgraceful flier to his classmates. They also left a message
on the family phone saying, ``We've been watching you, and we
know you're alone.''
Several employees' homes have been attacked at night,
smashing windows while they slept. In Philadelphia, an employee
was threatened by an extremist who yelled at her, ``I have your
license plate; we'll track you down and we'll kill your
family.'' In Baltimore, an employee was contacted late at night
asking her to come to the city morgue to identify a relative
who died. On arrival, she learned the call was a hoax. One
employee's 8-year-old son was so traumatized by these
incidents, he would wake up at night staring out of the window,
so scared that the terrorists would return. And in some cases,
over 100 extremists have terrified employees at their homes
like a baying, screaming lynch mob.
We have noticed an increase in the frequency and severity
of these acts, which also involve others merely because of
their association with GSK, and these include attacks against
people who work for universities, charities and other
companies. Their homes, cars and other property have been
wrecked. And in one case a retiree in Long Beach, New Jersey,
had his home and car damaged simply because his name was the
same as a GSK employee's; he had no connection with GSK, and it
was a case of mistaken identity.
Now, GSK has received excellent support from law
enforcement, but continues to be targeted; and to date, none of
the acts against GSK has resulted in a criminal conviction.
This is because the current laws are inadequate. We believe
that H.R. 4239 will enable law enforcement to deal effectively
with these crimes, and we urge Congress to pass this
legislation.
The situation today in the U.S. Is similar to what we
experienced in the U.K. 5 years ago. In the first 6 months of
2001, GSK employees in London experienced over 3,000 separate
actions by animal extremists. Prominent U.S. Extremists spent a
year or more in the U.K. During 2002 where they were seen to
associate with leading U.K. Extremists. At that time there was
little support from the U.K. Police, who could never apply
appropriate resources to deal with the situation.
The extremists became emboldened and placed fire bombs at
the homes of our employees while their children were asleep in
the house; destroyed entire buildings and other property;
terrorized employees, their families and their children. A year
ago, the U.K. Government introduced an effective piece of
legislation and gave additional resources to the police. We are
now seeing the benefits of this.
My advice to the Chairman and Members today is if the U.S.
doesn't act now, they will face the same level of violent
escalation and endangerment to the lives of American citizens.
I would like to finish by saying that before any new
medicine can be used on humans, it is necessary to test their
safety on animals, as required by Federal law. And those
involved in scientific research are regular people trying to
earn a living, raise a family and provide a decent future for
their children. They are committed to the discovery of new
medicines to help cure serious illness and disease; yet it is
they and their families and associates who are left to suffer
at the hands of violent extremists.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Trundley.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trundley follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Trundley
Good afternoon, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Bill Trundley, I am the Vice President of
Corporate Security & Investigations for GlaxoSmithKline and I want to
thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee regarding the
impact of Animal Rights Extremists (ARE) on GSK employees as well as
other individuals who have been targeted solely because of their
relationship with GSK.
GlaxoSmithKline is one of the world's leading healthcare companies
that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets pharmaceuticals,
vaccines, over-the-counter medicines and health-related consumer
products. Part of this work involves testing new medicines on animals
to assess the safety of the substances before they are administered to
humans, as required by law in just about every country in the world.
GlaxoSmithKline strongly supports and encourages passage of H.R.
4239 and its Senate counterpart to give law enforcement personnel the
tools necessary to prosecute illegal animal rights activity.
Although GSK is a global research based pharmaceutical company, we
are targeted by animal rights extremists because of our business
relationship with Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). This tactic is
referred to as secondary targeting because it attacks a company's
customers rather than the company itself. In this case, GSK is targeted
because it has a business relationship with HLS. Even more outrageous
is `tertiary targeting' which seeks to punish businesses and
individuals merely because they have some remote relationship with GSK
or a GSK employee. Animal rights extremists have found these tactics to
be effective because they exploit current law's inadequacy of
addressing and protecting non-primary targets. HR 4239 will address
this secondary and tertiary targeting and close the existing loophole
that has been exploited in order to terrorize completely innocent
people and legitimate businesses.
In the past 21 months in the US, GSK has experienced approximately
150 AR incidents directed at our employees, Board members, and others
with only a tenuous connection to GSK. Unfortunately this list includes
several non-profit organizations such as the Eisenhower Fellowship,
universities, and private high schools.
Since January 2005, GSK employees and our friends and family have
been subjected to approximately 75 intimidating and threatening home
demonstrations and 10 cases of criminal damage to property in the
United States. These incidents have traumatized employees and family
members particularly children. In many cases, intimidating and
defamatory flyers have been circulated to neighbors and classmates of
children of GSK employees.
In all of these incidents the common thread has been fear,
intimidation and the threat of criminal action, and in many instances
the ensuing criminal acts demonstrate that these were not idle threats
or mere free speech. [Show exhibit at this point] The exhibit entitled
``SHAC Terror Card'' is a typical flyer used at these demonstrations.
This card proclaims ``Do you do business with Huntingdon Life Sciences?
. . . If you do, there's something you should know . . . Radical animal
rights activists have been targeting executives and employees of
companies that work with HLS'' with criminal activity including:
smashed windows; spray painted houses; glued locks; vandalized cars;
stolen credit card numbers; ID theft; fraud; and continuous acts of
harassment and intimidation against employees, their children and
spouses. The card states that ``the only way to end or prevent such
attacks . . . is to stop doing business with Huntingdon.'' It is no
coincidence that many of the threatened criminal acts in this flyer
have been carried out against our employees and associates.
Some of the acts committed by those representing animal rights
groups include:
<bullet> Theft of mail from a GSK employee, which revealed
divorce proceedings and an alcohol treatment program recently
completed by his spouse. Animal Rights Extremists left a bottle
of beer at her front door and a note stating ``Have a drink
Bitch''. The same day AREs visited the school of her son
placing slanderous flyers throughout the campus depicting one
parent as an animal killer and the other an alcoholic. Similar
defamatory statements were e-mailed to the school's staff.
[Redacted version of Flyer to be show during this part] On a
previous visit to the spouse's residence an anonymous message
was left on her answering machine stating ``We have been
watching you and we know you are alone.''
<bullet> A GSK senior executive had his home attacked twice in
the middle of the night resulting in spray painting of the
exterior of the house with the words ``Puppy Killer Dave'' and
a rock thrown through a large front window. He has also been
subjected to anonymous late night threatening calls and
numerous daytime intimidating demonstrations, where defamatory
flyers and the SHAC ``terror card'' were distributed to
neighbors.
<bullet> During a Hugs for Puppies (a NJ/PA based animal
extremist group) protest at GSK's Philadelphia parking
facility, a female GSK employee was threatened by a Hugs for
Puppies protestor, when he yelled at her, ``I have your license
plate, we will track you down and kill your family.''
<bullet> A GSK physician was contacted in the middle of the
night by someone posing as an employee of the Baltimore City
Morgue, requesting her to come to the morgue to identify a
relative who had died. Upon arrival at the morgue she learned
that the call was a hoax, and was then fearful that someone was
lying in wait for her upon returning to her home in the middle
of the night.
<bullet> Another GSK employee was subjected to several ARE
demonstrations at his home, including leafleting the
neighborhood with the SHAC Terror Card. The employee's eight
year son was traumatized by the incident, waking up in the
middle of the night staring out the window for fear that the
terrorists would return.
Obviously GSK is very concerned about the targeting of its
employees and we've noticed an upsetting trend in the frequency and
increasing severity of these acts. While we will continue to protect
our employees in an appropriate manner, it is worth mentioning that
other individuals have been targeted merely because of their
association with GlaxoSmithKline. For instance:
<bullet> The President of a New York University had his house
spray painted because he invited someone to speak at the mid-
year commencement address who happened to sit on the same board
of another organization with a GSK employee.
<bullet> An employee of the Eisenhower Fellowship had acid or
paint stripper thrown onto two vehicles parked at her residence
just beneath an open window near where her young son lay
sleeping. The employee at the time was expecting her second
child. Eisenhower is a non-profit organization who happens to
have a GSK executive on their Board.
<bullet> Eisenhower Fellowship also had the locks of their
building glued causing the expense of replacing the damaged
locks.
<bullet> A Long Beach Island, NJ, retiree had his home and car
spray painted simply because he had a name similar to a GSK
executive. He has no affiliation with GSK or HLS. Animal Rights
Extremists have been arrested for this crime and are awaiting
trial.
<bullet> A Philadelphia area executive serving on a Board of
Directors with a GSK Senior executive was subjected to
character assassination solely because of the GSK executive
presence on the same board. After having his mail stolen from
his residential mailbox, country club members were informed he
was a pedophile by a forged letter purportedly from a fellow
club member. An invitation to an anniversary dinner was also
stolen, resulting in an obscenity laden message to the hostess
threatening intimidation if the individual wasn't uninvited
from the private dinner party.
<bullet> A senior executive of a Fortune Five Hundred
specialty chemical company had his home spray painted and his
car doused with acid or paint stripper, again solely because a
GSK executive serves on their Board.
GSK has received excellent support from law enforcement, and is
appreciative of the efforts by agencies such as the FBI, Philadelphia
Police Department, and other State and Local law enforcement agencies.
Despite this support, GSK continues to be targeted with intimidation
and criminal acts, and to date none of the acts against GSK has
resulted in a criminal conviction, despite the tireless efforts of law
enforcement. We believe this is because the existing laws are
inadequate to provide law enforcement and prosecutors with the tools
necessary to bring these terrorists to justice. GSK believes House Bill
4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, will provide law enforcement
with those tools, and we urge Congress to pass this legislation.
It is worth mentioning here that the situation today in the USA is
very similar to what we experienced in the UK five years ago. I can
tell you that in the first six months of 2001, GSK employees living and
working in and around London experienced over 3,000 separate terrorist
actions by animal extremists. I am aware that leading lights in the US
animal extremism movement spent up to a year or more in the UK during
2002/3 where they were seen to be associating with the leading lights
in the UK extremist groups. At that time, there was little or no
support in the UK from the police who claimed that, as there was no
resolve by government, they could not apply the appropriate resources
to deal effectively with the situation. Because of this, the extremists
became more emboldened and have placed firebombs at the homes of our
employees while their children were asleep in the house, destroyed
property, terrorized children and caused incredible stress on
individuals and their families. A year ago, the UK government
introduced more effective legislation and provided the police with the
necessary resources. We are now seeing the benefits of these measures.
Had it not been for the introduction of effective legislation, and its
application by the police, the situation in the UK would have worsened
and my advice to the Chairman and members today, based on personal
experience, is that if the US doesn't act now, they will face the same
level of escalation and similar acts of violence, intimidation and the
endangerment of lives of American citizens. The patterns of offending
and extremist behavior are the same.
I would like to finish by saying that those involved in scientific
research are regular people, trying to earn a living, raise a family
and provide a decent future for their children. They are committed to
the discovery of new medicines to help cure serious illness and disease
yet it is they and their families and associates who are left to suffer
at the hands of violent extremists.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Potter.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM POTTER, JOURNALIST
Mr. Potter. Good morning, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member
Scott, and Members of the Committee.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Potter, if you would suspend a minute, I
won't penalize you. I want to recognize the distinguished
gentleman from Florida Mr. Feeney, and the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio Mr. Chabot, who have joined us.
And you may continue, Mr. Potter.
Mr. Potter. Thank you, sir.
Good morning, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott and
Members of the Committee. I am honored to be invited to discuss
civil liberties concerns raised by the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act. As should be clear from the outset, though, I'm
not a lawyer, I'm not a first amendment scholar, and I am not a
spokesperson for the animal rights movement or underground
groups. I'm here because of my freelance reporting.
I've written for the Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning
News, Legal Affairs and other publications. And since 2000,
I've closely followed the animal rights and the environmental
movements, and the corporate-led backlash against them. I've
documented an increasingly disturbing trend of terrorist
rhetoric, sweeping legislation, grand jury witch hunts,
blacklists, and FBI harassment reminiscent of tactics used
against Americans during the Red Scare. The Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act is a continuation of that trend. The bill is
ostensibly a response to illegal actions in the name of animal
rights.
Department of Justice officials have told this Congress
that their hands are tied in prosecuting these crimes, but
their press statements tying the arrests of so-called
ecoterrorists don't match this rhetoric. Just this weekend,
four individuals were indicted for the 1998 fire at a Vail ski
resort. The Government recently rounded up over a dozen
environmental activists in the Northwest for alleged property
crimes, and six animal activists were convicted in March of
animal enterprise terrorism and other charges.
If this Committee wants surveillance, round-ups and
convictions of animal activists, that's already underway. Law
enforcement has not proven the need for heavier-handed tactics.
Property crimes are already punishable as so-called animal
enterprise terrorism. This bill, though, further expands that
sweeping category to include protests, boycotts, undercover
investigations, whistleblowing and nonviolent civil
disobedience. The bill criminalizes any activity against an
animal enterprise or any company tangential to an animal
enterprise that causes economic damage defined as including the
loss of profits. That's not terrorism, that's effective
activism.
Businesses exist to make a profit, and if activists want
change, they have no choice but to tug at pursestrings. That
principle guided the grape boycotts of the United Farm Workers,
the lunch counter civil disobedience of civil rights activists
and the divestment campaigns of antiapartheid groups. Those
tactics all hurt profits, and those tactics, if directed at an
animal enterprise, would all be considered terrorism under this
legislation.
Exceptions were made in the bill for losses from public
reaction to information about an enterprise, but that's not an
adequate safeguard. Corporations could argue that undercover
investigators and whistleblowers hurt profits beyond public
reaction. Those activists may cause a financial loss because
they received a salary or prompted extensive employee
background checks or prompted additional security measures.
Perhaps the greatest danger of this legislation, though, is
that it will impact all animal activists, even those that never
have to enter a courtroom. The reckless use of the word
``ecoterrorism'' by corporations and the Government has already
had a chilling effect, and this legislation will compound it.
Through my reporting I've already heard the widespread fears of
activists that they may soon be labled terrorists, even for
legal activity. They point to media smear campaigns by industry
groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom, and many were
stunned by full-page anonymous adds in both The New York Times
and The Washington Post with a figure in a black mask labeling
animal rights activists as terrorists.
They are also keenly aware that the Department of Homeland
Security does not list right-wing terrorists on the list of
national security threats, as in the Congressional Quarterly
article I brought today, but puts animal activists at the top
of that list.
This legislation will add to this climate of fear and
distrust, and it will force Americans to ask themselves, is it
worth it? Is standing up for my beliefs really worth the risk
of being labeled a terrorist? That is not a choice that anyone
should have to make.
Other activists may soon be asking themselves the same
questions though. Prolife groups have already raised concerns
that this bill could become the model for liberals in a changed
Congress to target antiabortion acts as terrorists.
Public fears of terrorism since the tragedy of September
11th should not be exploited to push a political agenda. I urge
you to reject this bill and ensure that limited antiterrorism
resources are used to protect national security and human life,
not profits.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity, and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Potter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Will Potter
Good morning Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and members of
the committee. I am honored to be invited to discuss civil liberties
concerns raised by H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
I should be clear from the outset, though. I am not a lawyer. I'm
not a First Amendment scholar. And I'm not a spokesperson for the
animal rights movement, or underground groups.
I'm here because of my freelance reporting. I have written for
publications including The Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning News,
and Legal Affairs. And since 2000, I have closely followed the animal
rights and environmental movements, and the corporate-led backlash
against them. I've documented an increasingly disturbing trend of
``terrorist'' rhetoric, sweeping legislation, grand jury witch hunts,
blacklists, and FBI harassment reminiscent of tactics used against
Americans during the Red Scare.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is a continuation of that
trend.
The bill is ostensibly a response to illegal actions committed by
underground activists in the name of animal rights. Business groups
have lobbied for this legislation for years. And Department of Justice
officials have said they need help prosecuting these crimes.
At the same time, they have been patting themselves on the back for
arresting so-called ``eco-terrorists.'' Just this weekend, four
individuals were indicted for the 1998 fire at a Vail ski resort.
Earlier this year, the government rounded up over a dozen environmental
activists in the Northwest for property crimes. And on top of that, six
animal activists were convicted in March of ``animal enterprise
terrorism'' and other charges.
If committee members want law enforcement to focus resources on the
animal rights and environmental movements, that's already being done.
The government has been able to make arrests and convictions using
existing laws.
This legislation will not help solve crimes. It will, however, risk
painting legal activity and non-violent civil disobedience with the
same broad brush as illegal activists. It takes the administration's
``you're either with us or against us'' mentality of the War on
Terrorism and applies it to activists.
This legislation criminalizes any activity against an animal
enterprise, or any company connected to an animal enterprise, that
causes ``economic damage.'' That includes the replacement costs of lost
or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted
or invalidated experiment, and ``the loss of profits.''
That clause, ``loss of profits,'' would sweep in not only property
crimes, but legal activity like protests, boycotts, investigations,
media campaigning, and whistleblowing. It would also include campaigns
of non-violent civil disobedience, like blocking entrances to a
laboratory where controversial animal testing is taking place.
Those aren't acts of terrorism. They are effective activism.
Businesses exist to make money, and if activists want to change a
business practice, they must make that practice unprofitable. That
principle guided the grape boycotts of the United Farm Workers, the
lunch-counter civil disobedience of civil rights activists, and the
divestment campaigns of anti-apartheid groups.
Those tactics all hurt profits. And those tactics, if directed at
an animal enterprise, would all be considered ``terrorism'' under this
bill. In fact, those three examples would probably receive stiffer
penalties, because they caused ``significant'' or ``major'' economic
damage or disruption. In other words, the more successful that
activists are, the greater terrorist threat they become under this
bill.
It is my understanding at the time of drafting this testimony that
proposed changes might exclude ``expressive conduct (including peaceful
picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal
prohibition by the First Amendment.'' It is a positive, yet
incremental, first step to include peaceful picketing. However, the
bill does not specifically exclude other activity like boycotts,
whistleblowing, undercover investigation, and non-violent civil
disobedience.
Furthermore, the inclusion of ``trespassing'' in damaging and
disruptive activity puts undercover investigators and whistleblowers
further at risk. Undercover video and photography undoubtedly impact
profits. They have also led to prosecutions, animal welfare reforms,
and a more informed democratic process on these issues.
Exceptions are made in the bill for disruption or damage ``that
results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the
disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.'' But this is no
safeguard. For instance, undercover investigators and whistleblowers
may cause financial loss for a company beyond the losses related to
third party reactions. Companies may argue that salaries for undercover
investigators, increased internal security, and extensive employee
background checks are added costs of doing business because of
activists. In short, this exemption seems to pose more questions than
it answers.
You probably have noted that I have not focused on the clauses of
this legislation dealing with significant bodily injury or death caused
by activists. Those provisions are each problematic, but they are also,
in some ways, non-issues. It's unlikely that even illegal, underground
activists like the Animal Liberation Front would be impacted. Their
actions, such as releasing mink from fur farms, spray-painting
buildings, and arson, have not claimed a single human life.
This legislation will impact all animal activists, even if they
never enter the courtroom. It will add to the chilling effect that
already exists because of ``eco-terrorism'' rhetoric by corporations,
lawmakers and law enforcement. Through my interviews with grassroots
animal rights activists, national organizations, and their attorneys, I
have heard widespread fears that the word ``terrorist'' could one day
be turned against them, even though they use legal tactics.
They point to full-page anonymous ads in both The New York Times
and The Washington Post this month, labeling animal rights activists
``terrorists.'' The ads promote a website, www.nysehostage.com, that
says ``anti-business activists'' like the Teamsters, Communication
Workers of America and Greenpeace could be the next ``eco-terrorists.''
Media campaigns by the Center for Consumer Freedom and other industry
groups have used similar rhetoric to smear legal activist groups.
Activists also feel that the government is disproportionately
focusing resources and attention on the animal rights and environmental
movements. They cite reporting by Congressional Quarterly that showed
the Department of Homeland Security does not list right-wing terrorists
on a list of national security threats.
Those groups have been responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing,
the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, violence against doctors, and
admittedly creating weapons of mass destruction, but animal rights
activists still top the domestic terrorist list.
This legislation will add to this fear and distrust, and will force
Americans to decide if speaking up for animals is worth the risk of
being labeled a ``terrorist,'' either in the media or the courtroom.
That's not a choice anyone should have to make.
Animal rights activists have been among the first victims of this
terrorist scaremongering, but if it continues they will not be the
last. Changes in the Supreme Court seem to have revitalized the anti-
abortion movement, which, unlike the animal rights movement, has a
documented history of bloodshed. But there's also a potential for
backlash if upcoming elections alter the balance of power in
Washington. Some anti-abortion organizations, like the Thomas More
Society, have already raised concerns that this legislation could
become a model for labeling other activists as terrorists.
All Americans should be concerned about this trend, regardless of
how they feel about animal rights. The word terrorism should not be
batted around against the enemy of the hour, to push a partisan
political agenda. Public fears of terrorism since the tragedy of
September 11th should not be exploited for political points. I urge you
to reject this legislation in its entirety, and ensure that limited
anti-terrorism resources are not spent targeting non-violent activism.
Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to your
questions.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Potter, and thanks to each of you
panelists.
Now we impose the 5-minute rule against ourselves as well,
folks, and I suspect we'll probably have a second round because
this is a very significantly important issue.
Dr. Basso, I think you correctly stated that most--well,
strike that--many--I remember you said most, but I'm sure many
activists do so properly and lawfully. Unfortunately, they're
tainted with the same brush with which those who don't do it
lawfully. That's the unfortunate feature here. And it is my
belief--now, I'm not suggesting these people are terrorists,
they may be, but terrorists generally are cowards, or they
conceal their face with black masks. They strike, as you
pointed out, Doctor, at night, by dark of night. It bothers me.
Now, I'm not interested in trampling on anybody's first
amendment rights. As I mentioned earlier, and the Ranking
Member mentioned in his statement, we have a manager's
amendment, but I really don't know that that was important
because I think the bill, on its face, indicates first
amendment protection.
But, Doctor, if you will, tell us in some detail how
critical animals are in your research and its potential benefit
for mankind--briefly if you can, because I'll need to get
around to these other guys.
Dr. Basso. The use of animals in research is critical.
Virtually every major advance in the last century has depended
upon the use of animals. In my research in particular, we
coordinate very closely with clinicians, neurosurgeons and
neurologists, and we try to ask as many questions as possible
of the human brain, but we have to remember also those patients
with whom we work are undergoing surgical procedures, and so
they're there principally to be treated for their disease. What
we then need to do is go back into the laboratory and replicate
either the disease or the treatment in order to understand how
it's working and how to make it better for the next time.
Mr. Coble. I thank you.
Mr. McIntosh, some might indicate that the recent
convictions of the six SHAC extremists to which you alluded in
New Jersey might well suggest that no additional legislation
such as this before us is necessary. What say you to that?
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We do not agree that the recent SHAC convictions indicate
that no additional legislation is necessary. As I mentioned, we
were forced to use the stalking statute there because, as has
been indicated explicitly on a number of Websites, animal
rights extremists explicitly attempt to tailor their tactics to
avoid Federal jurisdiction, Federal investigation and
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And so we believe that following
successful prosecutions under the stalking statute, we would
see another permutation to move to a situation where those
extremists are trying to avoid the stalking statute perhaps by
targeting not individuals, but entities.
Moreover, we think that clarity in the law on how broadly
section 43 of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act applies is
an independent good thing because it gives us a sense of what
the actual crimes these extremists may be committing are, and
thus doesn't force prosecutors to hunt through title 18 of the
Code to find a crime they may have committed while attempting
to avoid section 43. And second, it gives them a sense for what
the Federal crimes actually are, what the scope of the Federal
crimes are. And the scope of section 43 right now is not clear.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, Mr. McIntosh.
Let me try to beat the red light by putting a question to
Mr. Potter.
Mr. Potter, in your testimony you expressed concern that
nonviolent civil disobedience would be criminalized under this
bill. Let me ask you this, sir: Do you believe that spray
painting abusive graffiti on people's homes and vandalizing
homes and businesses or pouring acid on cars, do you think that
is nonviolent?
Mr. Potter. I think those are absolutely crimes, and
they're absolutely not nonviolent civil disobedience.
Mr. Coble. So you say that would be violent civil
disobedience.
Mr. Potter. I think that because I'm not an attorney----
Mr. Coble. And I'm not trying to entrap you.
Mr. Potter. I think they're absolutely crimes----
Mr. Coble. Okay. I didn't understand you clearly.
My red light appears, and I'm just pleased to recognize the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McIntosh, you've indicated that you prosecute some and
don't prosecute others, and make good judgments along those
lines. One of the concerns I have is what you prosecute and
don't prosecute ought not be your discretion, but ought to be
how the law is written. Let me ask a couple of questions along
those lines.
What is the law for everybody else in other kinds of
crimes, other kinds of protests in terms of business losses?
How does the treatment in this circumstance differ from other
kinds of protests?
Mr. McIntosh. Let me make an initial point here, which is
that the loss of profits provision is not new to this bill,
it's currently--it's part of the current law; so we are not
proposing to change that provision. Section 43(d)(3) of the
current law includes loss of profits in the current law.
It is my understanding that in this case we're seeing a
specific targeting--we're seeing a set of tactics used in the
animal enterprise terrorism or animal enterprise extremism
front, and in the ecoextremism front more broadly, that is
explicitly aimed at using violence against--violence and
threats of violence against people to cause them to
disassociate themselves, perhaps by imposing a loss of profits
on--I'm sorry, to disassociate themselves with the animal
enterprise. So this is a tactic we're seeing specifically in
this area that we're not seeing in many other places.
Mr. Scott. Well, if it were to occur in another situation
or another cause, why should that, too, not be illegal?
Mr. McIntosh. Congressman, I think that we would suggest
that if some other cause adopted a similar set of tactics in an
attempt to commit this sort of violence extortion, that
similarly it ought to be illegal.
Mr. Scott. Are you not concerned that when you make these
things cause-specific, you get into freedom of speech content?
Mr. McIntosh. Sir, we are not interested in what the cause
is. If there are--if this is being used against other causes,
we would be happy to see the ability to prosecute it as well.
We are interested only in the tactics involved.
Congress has seen fit to pass an animal enterprise
terrorism statute, and we are happy to prosecute it as it
exists. And if there are proposals to give us that authority, a
similar authority for other causes, we would be happy to
prosecute those as well, sir.
Mr. Scott. The bill provides for the same treatment for
conspiracy attempts as the completed offense. Is there
precedence for that?
Mr. McIntosh. I believe there is, sir. In a number of
instances they are treated the same. And I would be happy to,
after the hearing today, get back to you with a list of similar
places where--of places where they're treated similarly. We
believe it is justified to do so because when two or more
people conspire, they often can commit greater damage than an
individual person. And moreover, they often lead themselves
through sort of egging one another on to complete a conspiracy
that an individual would not feel compelled to complete.
Mr. Scott. Well, that's--if you have the conspiracy or the
attempt treated the same way as a completed offense, there's no
incentive to discontinue.
Mr. McIntosh. Well, the attempt actually involves an
attempt to succeed, so discontinuance is not a subject; that's
a failed attempt to complete.
Conspiracy, on the other hand, is a situation where we
think that often a conspiracy to commit the substantive
offense, because of the greater damage it threatens, can be
worse than an individual attempting to commit the offense on
his or her own.
Mr. Scott. I yield back.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time is expired.
The distinguished gentleman from Florida Mr. Feeney.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Basso, first, do you believe that you were targeted
because of the research you were doing to try to understand the
causes and treatment of Parkinson's disease, and was that
research funded by the National Institutes of Health, in part?
Dr. Basso. Excuse me. I'm not sure why I was targeted,
frankly. And yes, the research is funded by the National
Institutes of Health and also the Parkinson's Disease
Foundation.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you.
Mr. Potter, I appreciate that you don't have a legal
background. In your testimony you oppose the bill because you
say that it--and I quote, ``it criminalizes any activity,''
that causes economic damages. But the truth of the matter is
the bill is very specific; it does not criminalize any
activity, it criminalizes activity that either intentionally
damages, disrupts or causes the loss of any property. So
destruction or damaging property, or, alternatively,
intentionally places in reasonable fear of the death of or
serious bodily injury to a person, that's the traditional legal
definition so that you understand it, that's called an assault.
A battery is actually attacking somebody physically; an assault
is the imminent threat to do so under traditional tort
understanding. These are already illegal activities.
The point is that people are behaving illegally to make
political purposes. In my view, you're just flat out wrong.
They ought to be responsible for the natural and consequential
damages of their disruptive behavior. There are first amendment
protections that all of us believe are very important to this
country, but I would advise you not to be making statements
that any activity is criminalized because it's just flat out
false. And maybe next time you'll want to consult--go ahead,
you can answer.
Mr. Potter. Well, Congressman, with all due respect, I'd
like to point out that the definition given of economic damage
means the replacement cost of lost or damaged property or
records, the cost of repeating an interrupted----
Mr. Feeney. Mr. Potter, we'll have to get you a logic
course that you can understand one step to the next----
Mr. Potter. If I can just finish. The easier is the loss of
profits, and I think that's what would give any----
Mr. Feeney. Reclaiming my time. I point out that the
gentleman simply doesn't understand. You're not responsible for
any of the definition you just talked about unless you have
intentionally damaged or destroyed property or threatened
somebody's life or bodily injury. So all of what you're
referring to is not of concern if you behave legally. I want to
assure you and advise you to go talk to an attorney before you
come and testify before the United States Congress about what
bills do when, in fact, they do not do.
If you commit a crime, then you may be responsible for some
of those damages, and then the definition of what you're
responsible for is important. But as long as you have not
committed a crime, I want to assure you there's nothing in this
bill that would make you a target of obligation for those
economic damages.
Mr. McIntosh, I do believe that the gentleman from Virginia
raises an important point, because whether or not you're trying
to protect animals, or whether or not you're trying to
protect--whatever issue you have, ultimately the goal is to
protect a monkey or an unborn life or whatever issue you may
have, and it is a concern that, as opposed to attacking the act
when the act is the spray paint or the act is the imminent
threat, I mean, it is a concern of mine that we are identifying
specific causes, as worthwhile as they may be, for specific
crimes. And you indicated that you're more concerned about the
act than the goal as well. Is it fair to say, does the Justice
Department itself take a position on that?
Mr. McIntosh. That is correct, Congressman. We are more--we
are apolitical in this. We have no interest in the cause in
question, we have only the interest of ensuring that the
tactics used to advance that cause are lawful. It is our
intention to prosecute unlawful acts without regard to the
cause of----
Mr. Feeney. One concern that I have in your testimony, you
suggest that--and of course you haven't said this is
criminalized by the act--but on page 3 of your testimony you
said that one of the economic activities that causes--well, one
of the activities that political groups use is Internet posting
of home telephone numbers of law-abiding employees. I'm not
aware of any Federal or State statutes that they may violate.
If I post on the Internet my neighbor's address or telephone,
is that a Federal crime?
Mr. McIntosh. Sir, that is not a Federal crime. The Federal
crime is if you were to post that information in connection
with a threat of violence that would put a reasonable person in
fear for harm or death to himself or someone else----
Mr. Feeney. So it's attached to the assault definition,
genuine imminent concern about an attack.
Mr. McIntosh. That's right. This is what the courts call a
true threat, where you post a person's name along with that----
Mr. Feeney. Well, maybe in future testimony you will make
it clear that you're not concerned about just mere posting of
addresses and telephone numbers, it's combined with the other
threat aspects that concern you.
Mr. McIntosh. Congressman, to the extent I didn't make that
clear, I apologize.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Basso, your experience clearly is unfortunate and
unacceptable. I think we all concur that it should not be
tolerated. But I am going to direct my comments to the Deputy
Attorney General.
You know, as I see and read the various cases that are
reflected in the memorandum, I don't see a single case that
would not fall within the purview of multiple--multiple State
statutes, as well as a variety of Federal existing statutes,
not necessarily just simply focused on the so-called Animal
Terrorist Enterprise Act.
You know, the former Attorney General under President
Reagan, Ed Meese, expressed his concern about the
federalization of crime in this country, and, to be candid with
you, I think that this could very well serve as an example. You
know, you had to go to the--I guess the stalking statute to
effect the indictments of those who were responsible--
purportedly, allegedly--for the burning of a building out in
Vail, Colorado; but I'm not convinced that there are not
sufficient tools already to deal with the cases that are
illustrated in the memorandum, as well as related by Mr.
Trundley and Dr. Basso. I mean, as the gentleman indicated an
assault, what about civil rights actions, both at the State and
the Federal level? You know, if there's a conspiracy here, if
there's an organized enterprise, why not invoke RICO? Respond
if you would.
Mr. McIntosh. Sir, I would be happy to do so. Let me first
state that the Vail indictments actually involve an arson
indictment. So they are not under section 43.
Mr. Delahunt. But that's my point. You're making my case
for me. And I'm sure under a State statute arson carries a
significant sanction.
Mr. McIntosh. Let me try and address this question with
regard to the way these cases are investigated and prosecuted.
In many cases these are not just local actions, we're talking
about nationwide, and indeed in SHAC's case, an international
conspiracy that----
Mr. Delahunt. I understand that because I just perused the
memorandum. But in a RICO investigation, for example, why not
utilize the RICO statute?
Mr. McIntosh. We have a----
Mr. Delahunt. I mean, you have predicate crimes.
Mr. McIntosh. In many cases SHAC has, and other animal
extremists have tailored their crimes specifically, their
campaign specifically to avoid committing predicate acts so
that we can use RICO. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in the
Schindler case that a Hobbs Act predicate, which was a
traditional hook for prosecuting these sorts of things, the
traditional RICO predicate, was not available unless the
defendant had gained for himself something of value. So if----
Mr. Delahunt. Well, again, you know, and I don't have much
time, but do you work with local and State authorities during
the course of the investigation of these crimes?
Mr. McIntosh. We absolutely do, sir.
Mr. Delahunt. I would dare say that, in many cases, that
the sanctions that would be available under State statutes
would be far more severe than the possible sanction under the
Federal statute.
Mr. McIntosh. As a matter of law----
Mr. Delahunt. We're talking threats, we're talking assault,
we're talking violation of civil rights. You know and I know
that for each and every single conviction there's the
possibility of a parole after sentence.
Mr. McIntosh. In many cases the----
Mr. Delahunt. Consecutive sentences.
Mr. McIntosh. We are seeing explicit attempts to commit low
level harassment that in the end convinces people, despite the
fact that these are low level actions of State crimes, that
they are in a reasonable fear of death. And these are often
crimes that have very low penalties individually when you look
across the broad----
Mr. Delahunt. I will tell you, I can't--that's difficult
for me. And I'm using Dr. Basso's case. An aggressive
prosecutor in an investigation that would establish the
violation of multiple State statutes, and given the parameters
that you describe in terms of what this organization is about,
would warrant, presumably, after conviction parole after
sentences with considerable incarcerations. Now maybe that
hasn't happened, but that's the problem of, you know, not
looking--that's the problem in terms of recommendation to a
court post jury verdict.
Mr. McIntosh. In many cases the incident against Dr. Basso
cannot be connected by a local law enforcement agency to the
action 2,000 miles away against someone else; whereas with a
Federal offense we can connect those things and see them as a
crime in both places committed by the same person.
Mr. Delahunt. If the Chair would indulge me for an
additional minute.
Mr. Coble. Just for 1 minute.
Mr. Delahunt. My point is on sentencing in State courts,
the availability of bringing additional information before the
court for sentencing purposes would clearly be allowed.
Mr. McIntosh. We are not seeing success with that in State
and local law enforcement.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, I'm surprised. Have you consulted with
the National District Attorneys Association on these cases?
Mr. McIntosh. I don't know that we have, but I would assume
that we have and I am happy to get back to you with that
information.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, again, my reluctance to embrace this is
based upon a continuing federalization of State crimes. I
understand there's a current statute on the books now, and it's
not in any way an endorsement of the behavior that has
victimized Dr. Basso and presumably others, but at some point
in time we have to, you know, either respect the concept of
federalism where these kind of crimes traditionally in our
jurisprudence fall within the purview of the States. And if the
States are not enforcing them, then it's a question of
education, and insisting that State prosecutors work with
Federal authorities in those cases where it's clear that this
is an organized effort directed against Dr. Basso. And I just
can't imagine, I can't imagine a State prosecutor not seeking
the kind of penalties that would exceed whatever exists under
Federal statutes.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time is expired.
The distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Potter, if I could begin with the two
of you. How do members of the groups that we have been
discussing here this morning communicate with each other in
order to organize and plan their targeting campaigns? And
perhaps, Mr. McIntosh, we could begin with you.
Mr. McIntosh. Congressman, we see the use primarily of the
Internet to organize these campaigns. These tend to be often
loosely affiliated groups that post the names and other
biographical data of individuals online. And sometimes these
are individuals associated with the actual enterprise,
sometimes they're people associated with groups affiliated with
the enterprise. I know that in Mr. Trundley's written testimony
he also talks about targeting groups that are associated with,
are entities associated with a group.
So these are a broad set of biographical data that are
posted, often named as targets, and then they will list a set
of tactics that ought to be taken against these people. And
then when those tactics are taken by some anonymous entity,
they are immediately, the next morning, up on the website
saying some party did this, as we said they ought to.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Potter, anything you'd like to add to that, or could
add to it?
Mr. Potter. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
I would like to add that when we were discussing first
amendment speech, and even very controversial first amendment
speech, like posting news of an illegal action, the Supreme
Court has been extremely protective of first amendment
activity, even in the most controversial----
Mr. Chabot. Well, if you could just answer the question if
you would. Do you know how they communicate with each other?
Mr. Potter. From my understanding, it is through telephone
calls, e-mail, the same way everyone communicates.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Thank you very much.
Dr. Basso--and I'm pronouncing that correctly, aren't I?
Okay, thank you. Do you think that young scientists might seek
other fields to pursue if intimidation and harassment continues
on campus and at people's homes?
Dr. Basso. Yes, I most absolutely do. I myself have
considered leaving the field in light of my experiences. I have
colleagues across the country who have experienced what I have
experienced, and worse, and they have told me that they would
leave. I have colleagues in the United Kingdom who are looking
to leave because they feel they can no longer do their
research.
So my concern in the long run is not only that young
scientists won't go into the field, but already established
scientists might even leave and go where the environment is
more conducive.
Mr. Chabot. Can you estimate how much of a financial
burdenthat it's been for the University of Wisconsin to add
extra security to protect those involved with research?
Dr. Basso. Right. So I think that there has been somewhat
of a small response to deal with some of these issues; and in
large part I think because the seriousness of the problems is
not fully recognized, and it may be in part because of a lack
of a Federal legislation. So I think it's been a little slow.
But for me personally, my laboratory has been outfitted
with alarm systems. And I know that we're moving toward
increasing access to animal barriers, animal facilities and so
forth. Not to mention my own time that I spend engaged in these
activities, preventing me from engaging in my research efforts.
Mr. Chabot. Could you comment on what State and local
guidelines are in place for the humane treatment of the animals
which you use in your scientific research and what decision-
making body exists to determine when these guidelines have been
breached?
Dr. Basso. Animal research, and in particular non-human
primate research, is subject to very strict regulations and
oversight. And I'm not an expert in this area, so I can't give
you all the details, but I know what my laboratory is required
to do.
At the University of Wisconsin we have five animal care and
use committees, one of which is an all campus committee that
overseas the activities across the entire university. The five
campus committees are from each of the individual schools, the
medical school, the agricultural school and so forth. Those
committees are made up of a number of scientists, a lay person,
veterinarians. And their obligation and charge is to read
through protocols that are submitted by scientists in advance
of the work being conducted, and they have to abide by the
rules and regulations set by the USDA, the guidelines set by
the Public Health Service Policy, and also our own local policy
rules.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous
consent to ask Mr. Trundley one additional question?
Mr. Coble. Without objection.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Trundley, throughout your testimony you detailed
numerous acts of intimidation and criminal activity. How much
would you say that GSK spends each year on security and cleanup
because of the animal rights extremists?
Mr. Trundley. Well, sir, we do keep that information, but I
would be prepared to give that to you personally outside of
this meeting, because from our experience we would give that
answer and then by the end of the day such information would be
posted on an extremist website and they would be crowing with
glory. We would just be giving them a platform on which they
could grandstand. But I would be prepared to give that
information personally later.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. That would be fine. Would you say it is
significant?
Mr. Trundley. It is significant.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman. As I said previously, I
think this issue warrants a second round, so let me
editorialize a minute, the gospel according to Coble, Mr.
Scott.
Some folks have indicated that if this bill were enacted it
would have a chilling effect upon the animal activist
activities. I think an equally convincing argument could be
that some of the illegal activities by some of the animal
activists could have a more obvious chilling effect upon more
legitimate animal research by law abiding citizens. I think
that argument ought to be presented.
Mr. Trundley, your body language told me that you wanted to
insert your oars into the water as Mr. Delahunt was examining
Mr. McIntosh. Did you, or did I misread you?
Mr. Trundley. No, you didn't misread me, sir.
Mr. Coble. But far away, because Bill's not here to hear
this, but----
Mr. Trundley. But the point is H.R. 4239 will be designed
to assist the police, provide them with the tools and the
necessary measures to investigate crimes against secondary and
tertiary targets, whereas existing law is designed to protect
the primary target. And despite the fact that we have this
existing law at State and local level, there has still been no
convictions for the crimes committed against GSK people, 150 in
the last 21 months.
We need this legislation to enable the police to become
proactive in the way they conduct their investigations. These
people are organized along terrorist cells, independently
operating and using the Internet and e-mails in order to--
clandestinely, clandestinely to make contact with each other.
And then the result of their activities are clandestinely
posted on websites that do not operate within the United States
or the United Kingdom.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
Dr. Basso, if Mr. Scott had received a telephone call like
you did, I might say, well, that's just some screwball having a
little fun, they're mere words, Bobby, don't be upset about it.
I could say that. But if that call came to me, if I was the
beneficiary of such a call, Mr. Scott might say the same thing.
But when you're the beneficiary, it takes on an altogether
different meaning. I think you can attest to that. And I don't
mean to be speaking for you, Doctor, but as evidenced by your
testimony, you were placed in fear, were you not? I know I'm
leading the witness with that question.
Dr. Basso. No, you're absolutely correct. I was very
fearful for my well-being, for the well-being of the laboratory
personnel and for my animals, in fact. Yeah, this is very
important.
Mr. Coble. Well, I reiterate--I don't mean to be speaking
for every Member of this Subcommittee, but I know each one of
them on both sides, and I don't think any one of us is
interested in trampling on first amendment rights, but this is
a very, very difficult issue it seems to me.
Mr. Trundley, let me revisit the SHAC terror card. Talk to
me about that a minute in my time remaining.
Mr. Trundley. Well, as you can see, sir, the terrorist, as
we would describe them, is wearing a balaclava or a ski mask to
disguise their faces. These are issues. The threats are quite
explicit, stop doing business with Huntingdon Life Sciences,
stop experimenting on animals. These are left with the
scientists and members of their families. These are the people
that are involved in bringing new medicines to the public,
medicines such as flu vaccines, cervical cancer vaccines,
breast cancer treatments. Without those people working on those
products, you won't get them there. And they are terrified,
they are traumatized, they are debilitated when something like
that is handed to them personally or sent to them through the
mail post, or during what is on the surface a peaceful
demonstration their neighbors are contacted in person and
handed a terror card such as this, or they're told your
neighbor, who works for Glaxo Smith Kline, is a pedophile, is a
puppy killer, is a murderer. It's designed to create terror and
fear widespread, not just on the individual concerned, but on
his colleagues when he goes to the office the following day, or
with his colleagues and wider throughout the research and
medical communities.
If it was informed, reasoned, peaceful debate, we would
welcome that. We like to hear the views of others and we like
to give our views as well, but in an articulate, controlled and
informed manner.
Our point is, why create fear and terror amongst a group of
scientists or those involved in medical research, not only
scientists, but sales representatives, admin assistants and
executives of the company, why create that environment of fear
of posting it to the Internet?
Mr. Coble. Well, as you said, Mr. Trundley, designed to
create fear; actually not only designed to create fear but
delivering fear.
Mr. Trundley. It achieves their objective.
Mr. Coble. In spades. I see the red light.
The distinguished gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McIntosh, you have a copy of the bill and the--what's
called the discussion draft before you?
Mr. McIntosh. I do, sir.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Mr. Potter has indicated that the bill may
proscribe what are legitimate protests. In fact, if you have a
successful protest--on page 2, line 9, you define the offense
of whoever travels Interstate 1 for the purpose of disrupting
and intentionally, on line 15, disrupts, that constitutes the
crime which would really be the result of--a bona fide result
of a successful protest.
The discussion draft, however, makes a change in that, and
the offense is defined as someone who travels for the purpose
of damaging or disrupting, and in connection with such purpose,
A, intentionally damages or causes the loss of property, or
intentionally places a person in reasonable fear. Now
intentionally damaging or causing the loss of property is
already a crime, damaging somebody else's property. Placing
someone--intentionally placing somebody in fear is already a
crime, that's assault. Does that change--should that change fix
the problem that Mr. Potter has articulated?
Mr. McIntosh. Congressman, as I stated initially, we do not
believe that the draft of 4239, the introduced bill, is
unconstitutional. However, to the extent that there are
concerns that it would show first amendment activity, I think
it's clear that the discussion draft that I've been shown would
go a long way toward remedying those concerns.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Potter, have you seen the discussion draft?
Mr. Potter. Yes, I have.
Mr. Scott. Does that address the concerns that you have
articulated?
Mr. Potter. No, it does not, sir.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Why doesn't it?
Mr. Potter. The main changes I saw in the discussion draft
were, at the end, the specific exclusion of activity like
picketing or lawful demonstrations. I'd like to point out that
we would hope that would already be included under our
conception of protected activities. So to point it out almost
implies and acknowledges the overly broad and vague language of
this legislation and the true danger it poses to first
amendment activity.
And furthermore, that language still does not prohibit the
use of this animal enterprise terrorism clause against things
like civil disobedience, and perhaps even whistleblowing and
undercover investigations.
Mr. Scott. Well, in connection with that, you would have to
intentionally damage or cause a loss of property, or
intentionally place someone in reasonable fear of death or
serious bodily injury.
Mr. Potter. My concern is that language, ``the loss of
property,'' is extremely broad and vague. I know the
Congressman mentioned that there are specific definitions at
play here, but I think when an average person reads the loss of
property, any activist will see that and say, that's what I do,
you know, I'm trying to impact a loss of profit to influence
their business decisions.
Mr. Scott. You're using property to include profits?
Mr. Potter. Excuse me, I misspoke. I'm talking about
profits. But this says intentionally damages or causes loss of
property in the discussion draft, page 2, starting on line 1.
Mr. Potter. And I'm also operating--I'm looking at page 5,
3a, when we're defining economic damage and disruption with the
loss of profits as specifically laid out. That was part of the
crux of my concern of incorporating not only first amendment
activity, but also civil disobedience through that definition.
Mr. Scott. Okay. The economic damage comes in the penalty
part. If you have caused--if you have violated the law and
caused a loss or damage to property, then you are guilty; the
penalty comes in for the economic damage. Maybe we need to
review the cross references, but the fact that you have to be
exposed under the law, you have to actually damage or cause the
loss of property, which is a crime already.
Mr. Potter. I'm sure decisions will be made about the
interrelation of these definitions in those actual clauses.
In addition to that, my overriding concern is that,
regardless of that minutia, using the word ``terrorism'' to go
after things that are already crimes, such as property crimes,
and also potentially, as I've raised, first amendment activity,
will have an overwhelming, chilling effect and add to the
chilling effect that's already going on by using the words
ecoterrorism, animal enterprise terrorism in a post-9/11
climate.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask one additional question of Mr.
Trundley?
Mr. Coble. If you will suspend just a minute, Mr. Scott.
Folks, we have a vote. I'm inclined--I hate to keep the panel
here, but, Bill, how long will it take you?
Go ahead, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Have you sought civil remedies against the
people who were involved in these crimes?
Mr. Trundley. In the United Kingdom we have, so, yes, but
the opportunity has not presented itself within the United
States.
Mr. Scott. Have those actions been successful?
Mr. Trundley. In the United Kingdom it was successful in
that we managed to obtain what's known as a John Doe High Court
Injunction; that is, an injunction threatening contempt of
court against persons unknown, which is completely novel and
new in the U.K.
Mr. Scott. But no civil damages?
Mr. Trundley. No, but once the individuals have been
identified, we would serve that injunction upon them, and then
go for damages as well.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Delahunt. I will be very brief.
Mr. Coble. Bill, if you will suspend, if you need more time
we can adjourn and come back.
Mr. Delahunt. No, that will be unnecessary.
In terms of the line of questioning by Mr. Scott, I think
the concerns regarding first amendment issues can be resolved
by more closely drafted language. I am still at the point,
however, where I am not convinced that we are going down a road
of federalizing criminal law. And I know Dr. Basso wanted to
say something in response to the questions I asked earlier, and
so let me give her that opportunity.
Mr. Coble. And Doctor, if you could be brief, we won't keep
you all here, but we have to go vote, so if you could be terse.
Mr. Delahunt. This will wrap it up anyhow.
Dr. Basso. Sure. I guess I was thinking as you were talking
that there's a particular organization that is moving from
State to State and establishing little niches of animal rights
activity across the country, and it struck me that that's more
an important issue that we as a nation should be taking into
account rather than a State to State----
Mr. Delahunt. But my point, Dr. Basso, is that clearly, for
example, the Post is showing the AK-47. Most States have State
statutes which prohibit threats----
Dr. Basso. Right.
Mr. Delahunt. You know, I would suggest that that State
statute would just clearly have been violated with that
particular depiction because the most reasonable inference
would be that it was intended to create fear, to threat, to
provide a threat. And the point is that State prosecutors will
often act much more quickly and expeditiously where aware or
fully informed of the concerns that both you and Mr. Trundley,
I believe, have provided us, have testified to, that there is
more than enough criminal sanctions out there today. It's a
question of, in my judgment, educating law enforcement both at
the State and local, as well as the Federal level, because
Federal resources are very limited. It is only, I dare say,
those high profile cases; for example, out in Vail, Colorado,
it was a cause celebre, if you will out there, that directed
the attention of the Federal authorities to pursue it.
So in any event, you and your associations, professional
associations, trade associations might very well want to
communicate your concerns to the appropriate National District
Attorneys Association, State Attorney Generals Association,
National Association of Chiefs of Police, and I think you would
find a very favorable and positive response.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman. I thank the panelists, I
think those in the hearing room who are obviously interested in
this issue. I apologize for our abrupt departure, but we must
go vote. But again, I thank the witnesses for your testimony.
In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration
of this important issue, the record will be left open for
additional submissions for 7 days. Also, any written question
from a Member to the panel will be required within that same 7-
day period.
This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 4239, the
``Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act.'' We thank you for your
cooperation and attendance. And without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of the Honorable James Inhofe, U.S. Senator
Committee on Environment and Public Works
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Thomas E. Petri, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Wisconsin
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of Mr. Frankie L. Trull, President, National
Association for Biomedical Research
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of Dr. Bruce R. Bistrian, President of the
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of Mr. Mark L. Bibi, General Counsel, Life Sciences
Research
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of Ms. Gale Davy, Executive Director, Wisconsin
Association for Biomedical Research & Education
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of Mr. Keith Kaplan, Executive Director, Fur
Information Council of America
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of Mr. Wesley J. Smith, J.D., Senior Fellow,
Discovery Institute
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of Mr. James C. Greenwood, President and CEO,
Biotechnology Industry Organization
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Prepared Statement of the California Healthcare Institute (CHI)
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Results of Preliminary Survey of Threat Posed by Animal Rights
Extremists, Conducted by the California Healthcare Institute (CHI)
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Letter to the Honorable Howard Coble from the Animal Enterprise
Protection Coalition (AEPC)
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Letter from F2 Chemicals Ltd
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Letter to the Subcommittee on Crime Terrrorism, and Homeland Security
from Dr. Amanda Carson Banks, President and CEO, the California
Biomedical Research Association
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Letter to the U.S. Committee on Animal Rights Extremism from Mrs. Wendy
Bantin
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
Top 20 List of Illegal Actions by Animal and Eco-Terrorists, 1996-2006,
Complied by the Foundation for Biomedical Research
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
----------
News Article, Animal research does not validate trespass
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<all>