Would the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin yield for a question? Mr. Sensenbrenner, as I am reading through this act and looking at the types of injuries that would occur to people, it occurs to me that there are existing Federal…
Would the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin yield for a question?
Mr. Sensenbrenner, as I am reading through this act and looking at the types of injuries that would occur to people, it occurs to me that there are existing Federal statutes which come into play with respect to inflicting bodily harm on individuals. Why are we creating a specific classification here?
Please.
Well, reclaiming my time, I certainly stand with every Member of this House in defense of the rights of individuals to be free of bodily harm or injury under all and any circumstances. I think it would be a little bit easier for some of us to support this legislation.
I certainly will yield.
Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman for pointing that out. However, I must say that the reach of the Federal law includes any place which does Federal research, and all these universities are involved in research projects as universities who are supporting this bill.
I cannot see why we need to have a specific law with this regard. I mean, just as we need to protect peoples' right to conduct their work without fear of assault, so too this Congress has yet to address some fundamental ethical principles with respect to animals. How should animals be treated humanely? This is a debate that hasn't come here.
There are some specific principles with respect to humane treatment of animals. My concern about this bill is that it could have a chilling effect on people who, the law says, well, their first amendment rights are protected. But the law also is written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of protest, and so for that reason, I can't support this. I think that it would be important for this Congress to look at the claims of people who are sincere advocates of animal rights.
I am not talking about people who would threaten anyone with death because they don't agree with them, but there are individuals who love animals, who don't want to see animals hurt, who have a point and a right to speak out. I think for that reason, this bill has not yet reached its maturity.
I think I understand what the sponsors of this bill are trying to do, but I don't think that the end that it is going to, you are hoping to achieve, that you are going to reach, because unless this Congress makes a clear statement about ethical principles with respect to animals, and how we treat animals, how are animals treated in research, these are really serious questions that millions and millions of Americans care about.
So I understand the intent here. But I just think that you have got to be very careful about painting everyone with the broad brush of terrorism who might have a legitimate objection to a type of research or treatment of animals that is not humane. So, again, I wanted to express this note of caution about this legislation, but notwithstanding that there are specific statements about protection of the first amendment. This bill is written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of peoples' first amendment rights.
Would the gentleman yield?
I thank the gentleman. To calm the gentleman's concerns, I have read the bill, and I underlined the sections that I expressed concern about. I am concerned about, as you are, anyone who wants to commit violence against anyone. Remember, I am the author of the bill to create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. I share your concern about violence. I am suggesting that carving out a special section of law here has a chilling effect.
Again, I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin for his commitment to protecting people from harm. I would like to read the next paragraph that he didn't get to, because it raises a question about why this bill is necessary: nothing in this section shall be construed, number 3, to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action.
So what is this all about? This bill, in effect, does provide exclusive criminal penalties for a certain type of conduct, and yet the drafting of this bill makes section 3, under rules of construction, totally contradictory. This says there aren't any exclusive penalties, but the whole of the bill maintains and establishes exclusive penalties. So this is why bringing up a bill like this under suspension, no matter how well intentioned it may be, is problematic.
This bill has an inherent flaw that I am pointing out. In addition, when that flaw is held up against the constitutional mandate to protect freedom of speech, what we have done here is we have crippled free expression.
I am not and never have been in favor of anyone using a cloak of free speech to commit violence. The Supreme Court Justice said, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. No one has the right to yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. We have heard those kinds of admonitions.
On the other hand, the chairman's recitation of the statements of animal rights activists, statements that I, myself, would disagree with, those statements, in and of themselves, are constitutionally protected speech.
Yet under this bill they suddenly find themselves shifting into an area of doubt, which goes back to my initial claim that this bill was written to have a chilling effect upon a specific type of protest.
Again, I am not for anyone abusing their rights by damaging another person's property or person, but I am for protecting the first amendment and not creating a special class of violations for a specific type of protest.