Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3880) to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3880 currently under consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly.

Would the gentleman yield?

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

Well, will the gentleman yield?

The reason the bill is before us is that the current statute does not extend the reach of the Federal criminal law to those who do business with animal enterprise organizations, and the bill will make it a specific crime to intentionally damage the property of a person or entity having the connection to or relationship with or transactions with an animal enterprise. That is not in the current law now.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my distinguished colleague from Ohio hasn't

read the bill, so I will read it for him. At the end of page 7 in the Senate-passed bill, there is a subsection (e) called ``rules of construction,'' which says, in part: nothing in this section shall be construed, one, to prohibit any expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration, protected from legal prohibition by the first amendment to the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to yield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the bill before us, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which is the Senate version of legislation I introduced earlier this Congress. The bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate by unanimous consent amends the existing animal enterprise terrorism statute which has been law since 1992. It extends existing protections for animal enterprises to individuals, businesses and agencies including farmers, scientists, biomedical and biotechnical industries, research universities, teaching hospitals, financial institutions and others who have associations with animal enterprise.

This legislation is in response to rising incidents of violence and threats against these entities as a way to adversely impact animal enterprises without directly violating the existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The bill before us clarifies that it is a crime to damage or interfere with animal enterprise and expands parameters in existing law to cover threats, harassment and other illegal activities against those who are connected with such enterprises, not just the enterprises themselves. The law increases criminal penalties based on the level of violence or property loss, while specifically exempting from its coverage all first amendment protected activities.

Between January of 1990 and June of 2004, extremist movements such as the Animal Liberation Front, Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty, and the Environmental Liberation Front committed more than 1,100 acts of terrorism, causing more than $120 million in damage. Animal rights extremists advance their cause through direct action, which includes death threats, vandalism, animal releases and bombings. Their actions are calculated to aggressively intimidate and harass those identified as targets.

The FBI considers these extremist groups among its most serious domestic threats. Current Federal law including the Animal Enterprise Protection act is inadequate to address the threats and violence committed by animal rights extremists.

In my own State of Wisconsin, mink farmers and biomedical researchers have experienced their own share of intimidation, harassment and vandalism at the hands of animal rights extremists. Farmers have had their properties raided, causing thousands of dollars of damage.

Scientists around the State have received, in the mail or at their home, razor blades with letters stating that they were laced with the AIDS virus. Personal information such as home addresses, phone numbers, and photographs of researchers have been posted on extremist Web sites. Many of these same scientists report death threats and home visits by animal rights extremists who, through their terrorism, have a goal of driving the scientists out of their research, research which has and will continue to improve human health and quality of life.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing on the act in May of this year. At the hearing, a primate researcher from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, testified about the harassment and intimidation which she has experienced.

She has even considered leaving the Parkinson's research field and fears others may do so in the current environment. This statement has proven to be true. Just this past August, a researcher at UCLA halted his primate research because of the repeated harassments by animal rights extremists. The bill will provide Federal authorities with the necessary tools to help prevent and better investigate and prosecute ecoterror cases.

This legislation is widely supported by those in agriculture, biomedical and biotechnology industries, as well as many research universities, teaching hospitals and other research institutes. Enactment of this legislation will enhance the ability of law enforcement and the Justice Department to protect law-abiding American citizens from violence and the threat of violence posed by animal rights extremists.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Subcommittee Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Conyers, Subcommittee Ranking Member Robert Scott, Senator Inhofe and Senator Feinstein for their support in moving this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a letter from Advance Publications that details some of the violent and threatening acts made against editors of their magazines, such as Vogue, because of the fashion industry's use of fur or animal products that would be covered under this legislation.

Advance Publications, Inc.,

Staten Island, NY, November 13, 2006.

Re Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act S. 3880

Hon. Thomas E. Petri,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Petri: I write to support the passage of

the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 3880. Advance

Publications is engaged throughout the United States in the

publication of newspapers, business journals, and consumer

magazines and websites on a variety of topics. Advance

Publications is also affiliated with Bright House Networks,

an operator of cable television systems in numerous states.

For your information, a representative listing of Advance's

publications and of the locations of Bright House Networks'

cable systems is attached.

Our interest in this bill arises from the unfortunate fact

that at least one of our publications, Vogue magazine, and

its editor, Anna Wintour, have been repeatedly targeted by

animal activists who disagree with Vogue magazine's decision

to publish editorial content about, and carry advertising

for, fur and other animal products, and its support for

fashion designers who may use fur. These opponents are, of

course, entitled to express their views, but their opposition

often takes the form of physical attacks on Ms. Wintour and

her home, threats and efforts to harm her, stalking her on

the streets and at industry events, and even at a memorial

service for her deceased father, and at least one actual

physical invasion of Vogue's offices (which put numerous

persons in fear, behind locked doors), as well as other

attempts to do so.

While fortunately Ms. Wintour has not yet sustained any

serious lasting injuries, she has suffered physical pain from

those attacks (for example, from a ``flour bomb'' thrown in

her eyes, the effects of which hurt and hampered her for

days) and has often with good cause been concerned for her

safety and the safety of her family. Indeed, when Ms. Wintour

is appearing in public as part of her job (for example, at

fashion shows or fashion industry events), we now feel we

must provide guards, sometimes armed, to protect her. On a

number of occasions we are convinced, had it not been for the

presence of these unusual safeguards, Ms. Wintour could have

been injured by the efforts to make physical attacks on her.

We are of course concerned that these extreme activists will

step up the severity of their attacks because their efforts

have so far been unsuccessful at silencing Vogue.

We understand that among the arguments made in opposition

to the AETA are alleged concerns that it may infringe on

First Amendment rights. Our business is wholly dependent upon

respect for First Amendment rights, and we are second to none

in our defense of such rights. We have closely examined the

AETA with this in mind, and we do not agree that the AETA,

especially with the ``rules of construction'' that were added

to it, in any way would inhibit or punish free speech or

other First Amendment rights.

If anything, the opposite is the case. The real chilling

effect on First Amendment rights comes about when editors and

others

are put in fear of physical, violent attack because of what

they publish or say. It is the violent animal activists who

diminish free speech and free press by threatening and

attacking editors, publications, and telecasters.

We strongly believe that enactment of S. 3880 will serve to

deter many persons from engaging in these and worse violent

and threatening acts in the future. In addition, the new law

will give prosecutors a powerful new tool to go after those

who continue to commit these acts.

Please let me know if we can provide any further

information that would be helpful to you.

Very truly yours,

S.I. Newhouse, Jr.,

Chairman.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 10 a.m. to mark up an original bill entitled the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a full committee hearing on pending nominations on Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.

President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 21 at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Mary Amelia Bomar, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the National Park Service, Vice Frances P, Mainella, resigned.

Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, September 21st, 2006 at 10:15 a.m. the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a Business Meeting to consider the following agenda:

Legislation:

H.R. 1463, To designate a portion of the Federal building located at 2100 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, VA, as the `Justin W. Williams United States Attorney's Building.'

Nominations:

Roger Romulus Martella, Jr. to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

Alex A. Beehler to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

William H. Graves to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority

Brigadier General Bruce Arlan Berwick to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission

Colonel Gregg F. Martin to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission

Brigadier General Robert Crear to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission

Rear Admiral Samuel P. DeBow, Jr. to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission

Resolutions:

6 Committee resolutions authorizing prospectuses from GSA's fiscal year 2007 Capital Investment and Leasing Program

Committee resolution to direct GSA to prepare a Report of Building Project Survey

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Terrence W. Boyle, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; William James Haynes II, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Kent A. Jordan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit; Peter D. Keisler, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; William Gerry Myers III, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Norman Randy Smith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Valerie L. Baker, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Francisco Augusto Besosa, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico; Nora Barry Fischer, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Gregory Kent Frizzell, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma; Philip S. Gutierrez, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Marcia Morales Howard, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida; John Alfred Jarvey, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa; Sara Elizabeth Lioi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; Lawrence Joseph O'Neill, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California; Lisa Godbey Wood; to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia.

II. Bills

S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, Lugar, Specter, Schumer, Graham, Biden, Grassley;

S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005, Feinstein,

Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter;

S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005, Ensign, Kyl;

S. 394, Open Government Act of 2005, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold;

S. 3880, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Inhofe, Feinstein;

S. 2644, Perform Act of 2006, Feinstein, Graham, Biden;

S. 3818, Patent Reform Act of 2006, Hatch, Leahy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight of Federal Assistance for Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reentry in Our States'' on Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in SD226.

Witness List:

Panel I: Mason Bishop, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC, Regina Schofield, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Robert Bogart, Director, Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, Cheri Nolan, Senior Policy Advisor, Criminal and Juvenile Justice at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Roger Werholtz, Secretary of Corrections, Kansas Department of Corrections, Topeka, KS, Diane Williams, President and CEO, Safer Foundation, Chicago, IL.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2006 at 2:30 p.m to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Thursday, September 21, 2006 from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 21 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1106, to authorize the construction of the Arkansas Valley conduit in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; S. 1811, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of enlarging the Argur V. Watkins Dam Weber Basin Project, UT, to provide additional water for the Weber Basin Project to fulfill the purposes for which that project was authorized; S. 2070, to provide certain requirements for hydroelectric projects on the Mohawk River in the State of New York; S. 3522, to amend the Bonneville Power Administration portions of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, and for other purposes; S. 3832, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish criteria to transfer title to reclamation facilities, and for other purposes; S. 3851, to provide for the extension of preliminary permit periods by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for certain hydroelectric projects in the State of Alaska; S. 3798, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from the pooled reimbursable costs of the unused capacity of the Folsome South Canal, Auburn-Folsom South Unit, Central Valley Project, and for other purposes; H.R. 2563, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in Idaho, and for other purposes; and H.R. 3897, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Madera Irrigation District for purposes of supporting the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project.

Mr. President, today along with Senator Inhofe, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This legislation is crucial to respond to the expanded scope of terrorist activity that has threatened to impede important medical research and scientific innovation.

The legislation we introduce today would: clarify that it is a crime to damage or interfere with an ``animal enterprise''--which includes legitimate companies and non-profit organizations that use animals for education, research or testing; expand Federal law to also make it illegal to harm or cause property loss to anyone connected with an animal enterprise;

Criminalize threats, harassment, and other illegal activity that uses interstate commerce to intentionally cause fear of death or injury to anyone connected with an animal enterprise;

Establish graded penalties of up to 20 years depending on the financial damage or level of bodily injury caused by such illegal conduct, and up to life imprisonment if death results; establish that a convicted animal enterprise terrorist can also be ordered as restitution to pay the animal enterprise's cost of repeating experiments and other losses resulting from the criminal conduct; and clarify that all legitimate protest activities protected by the First Amendment are exempted out from any prosecution under the bill.

The need for this bill is obvious.

On June 30 of this year, extremist activists, acting in the name of animal rights, attempted to firebomb a Los Angeles home thought to belong to a prominent UCLA primate researcher.

The home actually belonged to a 70-year-old woman, and thankfully, the device did not ignite. But the desired impact was nonetheless achieved.

Just weeks later, a colleague of the targeted researcher announced that he will discontinue his important research at UCLA. He had two words for the terrorists who orchestrated the failed bombing: ``You win.''

While I recognize that reasonable people might disagree about animal research, and believe in the right to legitimate protest, it is outrageous that violent acts, threats and extortion have ended a legitimate medical research career.

Unfortunately, similar incidents have occurred throughout the State of California for several years, including the two bombs placed at the Emeryville offices of Chiron Corporation, a pharmaceutical company in the Bay area, that employs 4400 employees as our Nation's 2nd largest manufacturer of flu vaccines.

Agents believe the second bomb was timed to go off as first- responders arrived.

Yet extremist organizations, such as the Animal Liberation Front, defend these actions around the country as morally justifiable, and shamelessly take credit for these heinous acts.

Their tactics have evolved in the face of our current laws, and consequently, the scope of their terror is widening.

In recent years, animal rights extremists have expanded their campaigns to include secondary and tertiary targets, such that businesses and associates who maintain even highly-attenuated relationships with animal research facilities have found themselves the targets of terror and harassment.

These targets include banks, insurance companies, stockbrokers, customers, construction services, food services, Internet service providers, telecom companies, and even janitorial services.

No matter how remote the relationship, anyone who does business with an organization engaged in animal research is at risk.

But these indirect attacks are outside the scope of our current laws, and threaten to slow the progress of one of our Nation's largest and most valuable industries.

We must recognize that scientific research is not only a legitimate career, but also an invaluable facet of medical advancement, conducted by respectable professionals deserving of our support.

The deplorable actions of these terrorists threaten to impede important medical progress toward lifesaving cures and medical innovation.

They threaten to dishearten noble researchers, and to discourage promising young scientists and graduate students from ever entering these important fields of research.

It is in light of these dangerous threats that Senator Inhofe and I today introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

This legislation addresses the changing tactics of these terrorists, and provides law enforcement officials with the tools necessary to protect our Nation's researchers more effectively.

This new legislation will expressly outlaw the targeting of secondary and tertiary targets, by including within the scope of prosecution terrorists who act against any ``person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise.''

This is an important step toward combating the modern tactics of animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists, and toward protecting vital business relationships that foster and support the research industry.

At the same time, however, this legislation confronts these terrorist threats in manner that gives due protections under the First Amendment.

I fully recognize that peaceful picketing and public demonstrations against animal testing should be recognized as part of our valuable and sacred right to free expression.

For this reason, all conduct protected by the First Amendment is expressly excluded from the scope of this legislation. This law effectively protects the actions of the law-abiding protestor while carefully distinguishing the criminal activity of extremists.

The bill is also mindful and respectful of State efforts to address these problems. For this reason, the bill makes clear that it does not preempt State or local laws that address such conduct.

We are keenly aware of our responsibility to protect legitimate businesses and educational institutions from the damaging effects of this new breed of domestic terrorism. It is with this goal in mind that we introduce this bill today.

Biomedical research is a multi-billion dollar industry, but more importantly, it is a lifesaving industry. With the passage of this legislation, we can help to ensure both the productivity of this important field, and the protection of our scientists and their associates.

I would like to express my thanks to Senator Inhofe for his hard work and support on this important issue. I would also like to thank Senator Hatch for his early initiative and continued support for this goal.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today along with Senator Inhofe, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This legislation is crucial to respond to the expanded scope of terrorist activity that has threatened to impede important medical research and scientific innovation.

The legislation we introduce today would: clarify that it is a crime to damage or interfere with an ``animal enterprise''--which includes legitimate companies and non-profit organizations that use animals for education, research or testing; expand Federal law to also make it illegal to harm or cause property loss to anyone connected with an animal enterprise;

Criminalize threats, harassment, and other illegal activity that uses interstate commerce to intentionally cause fear of death or injury to anyone connected with an animal enterprise;

Establish graded penalties of up to 20 years depending on the financial damage or level of bodily injury caused by such illegal conduct, and up to life imprisonment if death results; establish that a convicted animal enterprise terrorist can also be ordered as restitution to pay the animal enterprise's cost of repeating experiments and other losses resulting from the criminal conduct; and clarify that all legitimate protest activities protected by the First Amendment are exempted out from any prosecution under the bill.

The need for this bill is obvious.

On June 30 of this year, extremist activists, acting in the name of animal rights, attempted to firebomb a Los Angeles home thought to belong to a prominent UCLA primate researcher.

The home actually belonged to a 70-year-old woman, and thankfully, the device did not ignite. But the desired impact was nonetheless achieved.

Just weeks later, a colleague of the targeted researcher announced that he will discontinue his important research at UCLA. He had two words for the terrorists who orchestrated the failed bombing: ``You win.''

While I recognize that reasonable people might disagree about animal research, and believe in the right to legitimate protest, it is outrageous that violent acts, threats and extortion have ended a legitimate medical research career.

Unfortunately, similar incidents have occurred throughout the State of California for several years, including the two bombs placed at the Emeryville offices of Chiron Corporation, a pharmaceutical company in the Bay area, that employs 4400 employees as our Nation's 2nd largest manufacturer of flu vaccines.

Agents believe the second bomb was timed to go off as first- responders arrived.

Yet extremist organizations, such as the Animal Liberation Front, defend these actions around the country as morally justifiable, and shamelessly take credit for these heinous acts.

Their tactics have evolved in the face of our current laws, and consequently, the scope of their terror is widening.

In recent years, animal rights extremists have expanded their campaigns to include secondary and tertiary targets, such that businesses and associates who maintain even highly-attenuated relationships with animal research facilities have found themselves the targets of terror and harassment.

These targets include banks, insurance companies, stockbrokers, customers, construction services, food services, Internet service providers, telecom companies, and even janitorial services.

No matter how remote the relationship, anyone who does business with an organization engaged in animal research is at risk.

But these indirect attacks are outside the scope of our current laws, and threaten to slow the progress of one of our Nation's largest and most valuable industries.

We must recognize that scientific research is not only a legitimate career, but also an invaluable facet of medical advancement, conducted by respectable professionals deserving of our support.

The deplorable actions of these terrorists threaten to impede important medical progress toward lifesaving cures and medical innovation.

They threaten to dishearten noble researchers, and to discourage promising young scientists and graduate students from ever entering these important fields of research.

It is in light of these dangerous threats that Senator Inhofe and I today introduce the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

This legislation addresses the changing tactics of these terrorists, and provides law enforcement officials with the tools necessary to protect our Nation's researchers more effectively.

This new legislation will expressly outlaw the targeting of secondary and tertiary targets, by including within the scope of prosecution terrorists who act against any ``person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise.''

This is an important step toward combating the modern tactics of animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists, and toward protecting vital business relationships that foster and support the research industry.

At the same time, however, this legislation confronts these terrorist threats in manner that gives due protections under the First Amendment.

I fully recognize that peaceful picketing and public demonstrations against animal testing should be recognized as part of our valuable and sacred right to free expression.

For this reason, all conduct protected by the First Amendment is expressly excluded from the scope of this legislation. This law effectively protects the actions of the law-abiding protestor while carefully distinguishing the criminal activity of extremists.

The bill is also mindful and respectful of State efforts to address these problems. For this reason, the bill makes clear that it does not preempt State or local laws that address such conduct.

We are keenly aware of our responsibility to protect legitimate businesses and educational institutions from the damaging effects of this new breed of domestic terrorism. It is with this goal in mind that we introduce this bill today.

Biomedical research is a multi-billion dollar industry, but more importantly, it is a lifesaving industry. With the passage of this legislation, we can help to ensure both the productivity of this important field, and the protection of our scientists and their associates.

I would like to express my thanks to Senator Inhofe for his hard work and support on this important issue. I would also like to thank Senator Hatch for his early initiative and continued support for this goal.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.