59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPT. 110–27 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 

2007 

MARCH 1, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CONYERS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 137] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 137) to amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen 

prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 2 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 2 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 3 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 3 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 3 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 3 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 4 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 4 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 4 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 4 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 5 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 8 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

2 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment (stated in terms of the page and line numbers 

of the introduced bill) is as follows: 

Page 4, beginning in line 13, strike ‘‘or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 137, the ‘‘Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 

2007,’’ strengthens the Federal prohibitions against animal fighting 

ventures. Under current law, animal fighting violations are misdemeanors under title 7 of the U.S. Code. H.R. 137 makes the buying, selling, or transporting of animals in interstate commerce for 

participation in animal fighting ventures felonies to be charged 

under title 18, with maximum prison sentences of 3 years, increased from 1 year under current law. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Prohibitions against knowingly selling, buying, transporting, delivering, or receiving an animal in interstate or foreign commerce 

for the purposes of participation in an animal fighting venture 

were added to the Animal Welfare Act in 1976, with misdemeanor 

penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to 1 year in prison. Since 

then, Federal authorities have pursued fewer than a half dozen 

animal fighting cases, despite receiving numerous tips from informants and requests to assist with state and local prosecutions. The 

animal fighting industry continues to thrive within the United 

States, despite 50 State laws that ban dogfighting and 48 State 

laws that ban cockfighting. Numerous nationally circulated animal 

fighting magazines still promote these cruel practices, and advertise fighting animals and the accouterments of animal fighting. 

There are also several active websites for animal fighting enthusiasts, and paid lobbyists advocating animal fighters’ interests. 

In 2002, Congress amended these prohibitions to extend them 

more fully to live birds. Previously, none of the prohibitions had applied to live birds if the destination was a State in which their use 

in fighting was not a violation of that State’s law. 

While the 2002 amendments also increased penalties slightly, 

from a potential fine of $5,000 to one of $15,000, they were left at 

the misdemeanor level. By increasing penalties to the felony level, 

H.R. 137 will give prosecutors greater incentive to pursue cases 

against unlawful animal fighting ventures, and strengthen deterrence against them. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

held a hearing on H.R. 137 on February 6, 2007. Testimony was 

received from two witnesses: Wayne Pacelle, President & CEO, The 

Humane Society of the United States, and Jerry Leber, President, 

United Gamefowl Breeders Association. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On February 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered H.R. 137 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

3 

favorably reported, without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum 

being present. On February 7, 2007, the Committee met in open 

session and ordered the bill favorably reported by voice vote, with 

an amendment by Mr. King to make more general the exception for 

using animals in hunting, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there were 

no recorded votes during consideration of H.R. 137. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 137, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, February 16, 2007. 

Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting 

Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Grabowicz (for 

Federal costs), and Page Piper/Bach (for the private-sector impact). 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 137—Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 

H.R. 137 would make buying, selling, or transporting animals for 

participation in animal fighting ventures (defined as any event 

which involves a fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment) a Federal 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

4 

crime. The bill also would prohibit any person from using certain 

forms of communication in interstate commerce to promote an animal fighting venture. Because those prosecuted and convicted 

under this legislation could be subject to criminal fines, the government might collect additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collections 

of such fines are recorded in the budget as revenues, which are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. However, because of the small number of cases likely to be involved, CBO expects that any impact on revenues and direct spending would be 

insignificant. 

In addition, CBO expects that any increase in Federal costs for 

law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations also would 

be insignificant and subject to the availability of appropriated 

funds. 

H.R. 137 contain no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 

costs on state, local, or tribal governments. H.R. 137 would impose 

private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, but CBO expects the 

cost of complying with those mandates would be small and well 

below the annual threshold for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz (for 

Federal costs), and Paige Piper/Bach (for the private-sector impact). 

This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the purpose of the 

bill, H.R. 137, is to curtail the interstate transport of animals and 

related instruments for purposes of engaging in an animal fighting 

contest. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. 

ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 137 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title 

This section sets forth the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Animal 

Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.’’

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

5 

Sec. 2. Enforcement of animal fighting prohibitions 

This section makes it a felony under chapter 3 of title 18, United 

States Code, for any individual to knowingly exhibit, buy, sell, deliver, or transport a bird, dog, or other animal in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for participation in animal fighting ventures. 

Additionally, this section makes it a felony for an individual to 

use the Postal Service or other interstate instrumentality for promoting an animal fighting venture or for selling, buying, or delivering in interstate or foreign commerce a knife, gaff, or other sharp 

instrument attached or intended to be attached to the leg of a bird 

for use in an animal fighting venture. 

This section expressly provides that this legislation will not supersede or otherwise invalidate any State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures. As a special rule with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds in a 

State where they would not otherwise be in violation of the law, 

this legislation provides that the prohibition against the knowing 

sponsorship or exhibition of a bird in a fighting venture applies 

only if the person knew that any bird in the fighting venture was 

knowingly bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of participation in the 

fighting venture. 

The section provides that any person who violates it shall be 

fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than three (3) 

years, or both, for each violation. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 3—ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND PLANTS 

Sec. 

41. Hunting, fishing, trapping; disturbance or injury on wildlife refuges. 

* * * * * * * 

49. Animal fighting prohibition. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 49. Animal fighting prohibition 

(a) SPONSORING OR EXHIBITING AN ANIMAL IN AN ANIMAL FIGHTING VENTURE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 

shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

6 

hibit an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal 

in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. 

(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN STATES.—With respect to 

fighting ventures involving live birds in a State where it would 

not be in violation of the law, it shall be unlawful under this 

subsection for a person to sponsor or exhibit a bird in the fighting venture only if the person knew that any bird in the fighting 

venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, transported, or 

received in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of 

participation in the fighting venture. 

(b) BUYING, SELLING, DELIVERING, OR TRANSPORTING ANIMALS

FOR PARTICIPATION IN ANIMAL FIGHTING VENTURE.—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver, 

or receive for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign 

commerce, any dog or other animal for purposes of having the dog 

or other animal participate in an animal fighting venture. 

(c) USE OF POSTAL SERVICE OR OTHER INTERSTATE INSTRUMEN- TALITY FOR PROMOTING ANIMAL FIGHTING VENTURE.—It shall be 

unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the 

United States Postal Service or any instrumentality of interstate 

commerce for commercial speech promoting an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the States of the 

United States. 

(d) VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.—Notwithstanding subsection (c), 

the activities prohibited by such subsection shall be unlawful with 

respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is 

to take place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws 

thereof. 

(e) SHARP INSTRUMENTS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to 

knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver in interstate or foreign 

commerce a knife, a gaff, or any other sharp instrument attached, 

or designed or intended to be attached, to the leg of a bird for use 

in an animal fighting venture. 

(f) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), (c), or 

(e) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 

3 years, or both, for each such violation. 

(g) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— (1) the term ‘‘animal fighting venture’’ means any event which 

involves a fight between at least two animals and is conducted 

for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment except that the 

term ‘‘animal fighting venture’’ shall not be deemed to include 

any activity the primary purpose of which involves the use of 

one or more animals in hunting another animal; 

(2) the term ‘‘instrumentality of interstate commerce’’ means 

any written, wire, radio, television or other form of communication in, or using a facility of, interstate commerce; 

(3) the term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the United States, the 

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 

any territory or possession of the United States; and 

(4) the term ‘‘animal’’ means any live bird, or any live dog or 

other mammal, except man. 

(h) CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW—The provisions of this section do 

not supersede or otherwise invalidate any such State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures 

except in case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between any remstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

7 

quirements thereunder and this section or any rule, regulation, or 

standard hereunder. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 26 OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 

ANIMAL FIGHTING

SEC. 26. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or 

(c) shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned for not more 

than 1 year, or both, for each such violation.¿ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(8) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

On February 7, 2007, the House Committee of the Judiciary 

passed by voice vote H.R. 137, the ‘‘Animal Fighting Prohibition 

Enforcement Act of 2007.’’ I believe the Committee erred in their 

judgment and subsequent approval of H.R. 137. 

H.R. 137 seeks to make it a three-year federal felony to transport 

a chicken across state lines for the purpose of exhibiting it in a 

fight. Currently, 48 states already have laws on the books to address this issue. 

H.R. 137 is being driven by animal rights activists. Issues involving animals belong before the Committee on Agriculture, not the 

Committee on the Judiciary. Yet, animal rights activists have crafted this legislation to take jurisdiction of animal welfare concerns 

from the Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over Title 

7, and put it in Title 18, which is under jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. This maneuver gives animal rights activists the 

ability to ruin animal agriculture in the United States through 

poorly drafted laws that purport to be for animal welfare. In reality, these laws seek to over regulate animal agriculture in the 

United States, bit by bit. This will ultimately hurt animal agriculture in the United States and put family farms out of business. 

The Agriculture Committee, not the Judiciary Committee has the 

resident expertise in animal welfare. The Agriculture Committee is 

competent to ensure that our federal laws prohibit all animal cruelty. 

More importantly, I believe that it diminishes human life if we 

make it a felony to transport animals for fighting, but it is not a 

felony to take a girl across a state line for an abortion. It is a 

strong conviction of mine to fight for the sanctity of life, and while 

I believe that it is important that we are humane in how we treat 

animals, I do not believe that we should put their welfare ahead 

of unborn humans. 

I oppose making animal fighting a three year felony because it 

degrades the value of human life. Until we provide a higher standard of protection for human life, I will oppose making interstate 

transportation of animals for purposes of animal fighting a felony. 

In the U.S., we are faced with the alarming practice of people taking a minor girl across state lines for an abortion to avoid their 

own state’s laws that require the minor’s parents to be notified. 

Federal legislation, CIANA—the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, would make this abhorrent activity, which exploits a 

young woman and kills her child, a misdemeanor. This legislation 

has still not become law yet, but it is a step forward in the right 

direction toward protecting innocent human life. 

I believe that we should not value animal life over human life. 

It makes no sense that killing a person is a misdemeanor if transporting animals to a fight is a felony. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

9 

My home state Iowa is an agricultural state. We understand the 

importance of animal husbandry and being good stewards of our 

animals. However, we also understand that animals are less important than humans. Animal rights activists seek to place heifers and 

hogs on the same level as people. I disagree. 

I strongly opposed this legislation because animals should not be 

put before humans and animal welfare concerns belong before the 

Agriculture Committee. 

For these reasons I disagree with the action of the Committee 

today which is why I voted No in the voice vote to report H.R. 137 

from Committee. 

STEVE KING. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING