U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

33–102 PDF 2007

NATIVE AMERICAN METHAMPHETAMINE ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT OF 2007, THE

ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007, AND THE PREVENTING

HARASSMENT THROUGH OUTBOUND NUMBER

ENFORCEMENT (PHONE) ACT OF 2007

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 545, H.R. 137 and H.R. 740

FEBRUARY 6, 2007

Serial No. 110–5

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

[Vacant] 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director-Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

[Vacant] 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 6, 2007

TEXT OF BILL 

Page 

H.R. 545, the ‘‘Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007’’ ................................................................................................. 2

H.R. 137, the ‘‘Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007’’ .............. 6

H.R. 740, the ‘‘Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007’’ ............................................................................... 11

OPENING STATEMENT 

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................................................................ 1

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 17

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Mexico 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23

Mr. Barry Sabin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29

Mr. Ben Shelly, Vice President, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 41

Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, Humane Society of the United 

States, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 45

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47

Mr. Jerry Leber, President, United Gamefowl Breeders Association, Albany, 

OH 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 55

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................ 105

Prepared Statement of Phil Kiko, Esquire, Senior Adviser, Office of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. ................................................................... 107

(1)

NATIVE AMERICAN METHAMPHETAMINE ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT OF 2007, 

THE ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007, AND THE PREVENTING HARASSMENT THROUGH OUTBOUND NUMBER ENFORCEMENT (PHONE) 

ACT OF 2007

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bobby Scott 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Committee will come to order. Today’s hearing 

will now come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you to this first hearing of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security in the 

110th Congress. 

I am also pleased to have been elected by my colleagues to Chair 

the Subcommittee during this Congress. And I want to say to 

Ranking Member Forbes and other Members who are on both sides 

of the aisle that I look forward to working with each and every one 

of you in conducting the important work of this Subcommittee. 

Today we will be considering H.R. 740, the ‘‘Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 

2007;’’ H.R. 545, the ‘‘Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007;’’ and H.R. 137, the ‘‘Animal 

Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.’’

[The bill, H.R. 545, the ‘‘Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007’’ follows:]

2

1

I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 545

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

clarify that territories and Indian tribes are eligible to receive grants 

for confronting the use of methamphetamine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2007

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. KILDEE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 

in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to clarify that territories and Indian tribes 

are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use 

of methamphetamine.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Native American Meth5 amphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007’’. 


H545.AAB
3

2

•HR 545 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION IN METH2 AMPHETAMINE GRANTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2996(a) of the Omnibus 

4 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

5 3797cc(a)) is amended—

6 (1) in paragraph (1)—

7 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

8 (A), by inserting ‘‘, territories, and Indian 

9 tribes (as defined in section 2704)’’ after ‘‘to 

10 assist States’’; and 

11 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and 

12 local’’ and inserting ‘‘, territorial, Tribal, and 

13 local’’; 

14 (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, territories, 

15 and Indian tribes’’ after ‘‘make grants to States’’; 

16 and 

17 (3) in paragraph (3)(C), by inserting ‘‘, Trib18 al,’’ after ‘‘support State’’. 

19 (b) GRANT PROGRAMS FOR DRUG ENDANGERED

20 CHILDREN.—Section 755(a) of the USA PATRIOT Im21 provement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 

22 3797cc–2(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, territories, and 

23 Indian tribes (as defined in section 2704 of the Omnibus 

24 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

25 3797d))’’ after ‘‘make grants to States’’. 


H545.AAC
4

3

•HR 545 IH

1 (c) GRANT PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS METHAMPHET2 AMINE USE BY PREGNANT AND PARENTING WOMEN OF3 FENDERS.—Section 756 of the USA PATRIOT Improve4 ment and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 

5 3797cc–3) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ‘‘, terri7 torial, or Tribal’’ after ‘‘State’’; 

8 (2) in subsection (b)—

9 (A) in paragraph (1)—

10 (i) by inserting ‘‘, territorial, or Trib11 al’’ after ‘‘State’’; and 

12 (ii) by striking ‘‘and/or’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘or’’; 

14 (B) in paragraph (2)—

15 (i) by inserting ‘‘, territory, Indian 

16 tribe,’’ after ‘‘agency of the State’’; and 

17 (ii) by inserting ‘‘, territory, Indian 

18 tribe,’’ after ‘‘criminal laws of that State’’; 

19 and 

20 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(3) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term ‘Indian tribe’ 

22 has the meaning given the term in section 2704 of 

23 the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 

24 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797d)).’’; and 

25 (3) in subsection (c)—


H545.AAD
5

4

•HR 545 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘Indian 

2 Tribes’’ and inserting ‘‘Indian tribes’’; and 

3 (B) in paragraph (4)—

4 (i) in the matter preceding subpara5 graph (A)—

6 (I) by striking ‘‘State’s services’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘services of the State, 

8 territory, or Indian tribe’’; and 

9 (II) by striking ‘‘and/or’’ and in10 serting ‘‘or’’; 

11 (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

12 ‘‘State’’; 

13 (iii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting 

14 ‘‘, Indian tribes,’’ after ‘‘involved coun15 ties’’; and 

16 (iv) in subparagraph (D), by inserting 

17 ‘‘, tribal’’ after ‘‘Federal, State’’.

Æ


H545.AAE
6

[The bill, H.R. 137, the ‘‘Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007’’ follows:] 

I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 137

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen prohibitions against 

animal fighting, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007

Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen 

prohibitions against animal fighting, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Animal Fighting Pro5 hibition Enforcement Act of 2007’’. 


H137.AAB
7

2

•HR 137 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBI2 TIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 3 of title 18, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘§ 49. Animal fighting prohibition 

7 ‘‘(a) SPONSORING OR EXHIBITING AN ANIMAL IN AN

8 ANIMAL FIGHTING VENTURE.—

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para10 graph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to 

11 knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal 

12 fighting venture, if any animal in the venture was 

13 moved in interstate or foreign commerce. 

14 ‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN STATES.—

15 With respect to fighting ventures involving live birds 

16 in a State where it would not be in violation of the 

17 law, it shall be unlawful under this subsection for a 

18 person to sponsor or exhibit a bird in the fighting 

19 venture only if the person knew that any bird in the 

20 fighting venture was knowingly bought, sold, deliv21 ered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign 

22 commerce for the purpose of participation in the 

23 fighting venture. 

24 ‘‘(b) BUYING, SELLING, DELIVERING, OR TRANS25 PORTING ANIMALS FOR PARTICIPATION IN ANIMAL

26 FIGHTING VENTURE.—It shall be unlawful for any person 


H137.AAC
8

3

•HR 137 IH

1 to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver, or receive for 

2 purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign com3 merce, any dog or other animal for purposes of having 

4 the dog or other animal participate in an animal fighting 

5 venture. 

6 ‘‘(c) USE OF POSTAL SERVICE OR OTHER INTER7 STATE INSTRUMENTALITY FOR PROMOTING ANIMAL

8 FIGHTING VENTURE.—It shall be unlawful for any person 

9 to knowingly use the mail service of the United States 

10 Postal Service or any instrumentality of interstate com11 merce for commercial speech promoting an animal fighting 

12 venture except as performed outside the limits of the 

13 States of the United States. 

14 ‘‘(d) VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.—Notwithstanding 

15 subsection (c), the activities prohibited by such subsection 

16 shall be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involv17 ing live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State 

18 where it would be in violation of the laws thereof. 

19 ‘‘(e) SHARP INSTRUMENTS.—It shall be unlawful for 

20 any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver in 

21 interstate or foreign commerce a knife, a gaff, or any 

22 other sharp instrument attached, or designed or intended 

23 to be attached, to the leg of a bird for use in an animal 

24 fighting venture. 


H137.AAD
9

4

•HR 137 IH

1 ‘‘(f) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates sub2 section (a), (b), (c), or (e) shall be fined under this title 

3 or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, for each 

4 such violation. 

5 ‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

6 ‘‘(1) the term ‘animal fighting venture’ means 

7 any event which involves a fight between at least two 

8 animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wa9 gering, or entertainment except that the term ‘ani10 mal fighting venture’ shall not be deemed to include 

11 any activity the primary purpose of which involves 

12 the use of one or more animals in hunting another 

13 animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, 

14 or fox hunting; 

15 ‘‘(2) the term ‘instrumentality of interstate 

16 commerce’ means any written, wire, radio, television 

17 or other form of communication in, or using a facil18 ity of, interstate commerce; 

19 ‘‘(3) the term ‘State’ means any State of the 

20 United States, the District of Columbia, the Com21 monwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or pos22 session of the United States; and 

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

24 any live dog or other mammal, except man. 


H137.AAE
10

5

•HR 137 IH

1 ‘‘(h) CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.—The provisions 

2 of this section do not supersede or otherwise invalidate 

3 any such State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance 

4 relating to animal fighting ventures except in case of a 

5 direct and irreconcilable conflict between any requirements 

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

7 standard hereunder.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

9 for chapter 3 of title 18, is amended by inserting after 

10 the item relating to section 48 the following:

‘‘49. Animal fighting prohibition.’’.

11 (c) REPEAL OF CRIMINAL PENALTY IN THE ANIMAL

12 WELFARE ACT.—Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act 

13 (7 U.S.C. 2156) is amended by striking subsection (e).

Æ


H137.AAF
11

[The bill, H.R. 740, the ‘‘Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007’’ follows:] 

I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 740

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent caller ID spoofing, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2007

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FORBES, Mr. TIM

MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. REICHERT, and Mrs. SCHMIDT) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent caller 

ID spoofing, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing Harass5 ment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) 

6 Act of 2007’’. 

7 SEC. 2. CALLER ID SPOOFING. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 47 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


H740.AAB
12

2

•HR 740 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1040. Caller ID spoofing 

2 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—Whoever, in or affecting interstate 

3 or foreign commerce, knowingly uses or provides to an4 other—

5 ‘‘(1) false caller ID information with intent to 

6 defraud; or 

7 ‘‘(2) caller ID information pertaining to an ac8 tual person without that person’s consent and with 

9 intent to deceive the recipient of a call about the 

10 identity of the caller; 

11 or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as 

12 provided in subsection (b). 

13 ‘‘(b) PUNISHMENT.—Whoever violates subsection (a) 

14 shall—

15 ‘‘(1) if the offense is committed for commercial 

16 gain, be fined under this title or imprisoned not 

17 more than 5 years, or both; and 

18 ‘‘(2) be fined under this title or imprisoned not 

19 more than one year, or both, in any other case. 

20 ‘‘(c) LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCEPTION.—It is a de21 fense to a prosecution for an offense under this section 

22 that the conduct involved was lawfully authorized inves23 tigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law en24 forcement agency of the United States, a State, or a polit25 ical subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency 


H740.AAC
13

3

•HR 740 IH

1 of the United States, or any activity authorized under 

2 chapter 224 of this title. 

3 ‘‘(d) FORFEITURE.—

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The court, in imposing sen5 tence on a person who is convicted of an offense 

6 under this section, shall order that the defendant 

7 forfeit to the United States—

8 ‘‘(A) any property, real or personal, consti9 tuting or traceable to gross proceeds obtained 

10 from such offense; and 

11 ‘‘(B) any equipment, software or other 

12 technology used or intended to be used to com13 mit or to facilitate the commission of such of14 fense. 

15 ‘‘(2) PROCEDURES.—The procedures set forth 

16 in section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

17 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d) of that sec18 tion, and in Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of 

19 Criminal Procedure, shall apply to all stages of a 

20 criminal forfeiture proceeding under this section. 

21 ‘‘(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

22 ‘‘(1) the term ‘caller ID information’ means in23 formation regarding the origination of the telephone 

24 call, such as the name or the telephone number of 

25 the caller; 


H740.AAD
14

4

•HR 740 IH

1 ‘‘(2) the term ‘telephone call’ means a call 

2 made using or received on a telecommunications 

3 service or VOIP service; 

4 ‘‘(3) the term ‘VOIP service’ means a service 

5 that—

6 ‘‘(A) provides real-time 2-way voice com7 munications transmitted using Internet Pro8 tocol, or a successor protocol; 

9 ‘‘(B) is offered to the public, or such class10 es of users as to be effectively available to the 

11 public (whether part of a bundle of services or 

12 separately); and 

13 ‘‘(C) has the capability to originate traffic 

14 to, or terminate traffic from, the public 

15 switched telephone network or a successor net16 work; 

17 ‘‘(4) the term ‘State’ includes a State of the 

18 United States, the District of Columbia, and any 

19 commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 

20 States; and 

21 ‘‘(5) a term used in a definition in this sub22 section has the meaning given that term in section 

23 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

24 153).’’. 


H740.AAE
15

5

•HR 740 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

2 at the beginning of chapter 47 of title 18, United States 

3 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

4 item:

‘‘1040. Caller ID spoofing.’’.

5 SEC. 3. OTHER SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES FOR 

6 MONEY LAUNDERING. 

7 (a) FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION

8 WITH ELECTRONIC MAIL.—Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 

9 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘section 

10 1037 (Fraud and related activity in connection with elec11 tronic mail),’’ after ‘‘1032’’. 

12 (b) CALLER ID SPOOFING.—Section 1956(c)(7)(D) 

13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 

14 ‘‘section 1040 (Caller ID spoofing),’’ before ‘‘section 

15 1111’’.

Æ


H740.AAF
16

Mr. SCOTT. All three bills have strong bipartisan support. All 

three bills will be marked up in this Subcommittee today immediately following the hearing. 

We considered an earlier version of the PHONE Act in the 109th 

Congress and will be hearing from the author of that bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, in just a moment. He is 

also a co-sponsor of this year’s bill. 

H.R. 740 is aimed at the practice called ‘‘spoofing.’’ Spoofing occurs when a caller uses a fake caller I.D. to hide the caller’s identity in order to commit fraud or another abusive act. 

However, not all use of fake caller I.D. information is considered 

spoofing. When you receive a call from the United States House of 

Representatives, on an outside line, the number that appears on 

the outside line will have a different number than the one you are 

calling from. You will have basically a fake number. This kind of 

non-malicious fake I.D. use is used by some businesses as well, and 

it is exempted from the bill. 

Spoofing also occurs when a caller knowingly uses a caller I.D. 

of another person without permission. One of our witnesses at the 

hearing in our predecessor bill last Congress was Phil Kiko, the Judiciary Committee’s chief counsel at the time, who had been the 

victim of such caller I.D. spoofing. 

While he had not suffered any theft of any money or tangible 

property at the time and was not directly harassed by the person 

who used his caller I.D., Phil and his family members were understandably irritated by numerous calls from people who were calling 

him back as a result of his caller I.D. being left on their caller I.D. 

systems. 

The bill that we were considering last Congress did not cover 

that situation, and that bill also made even non-abusive fake I.D. 

use illegal. That bill also did not make the distinction in penalties 

for spoofing that does not involve fraud or commercial gain. 

Further, comments from the Department of Justice were not 

available when last year’s bill was being developed. We have since 

had a chance to consider DOJ’s input and have constructed a bill 

that makes fraudulent commercial use of caller I.D. information a 

felony, makes abusive use of another person’s caller I.D. information without fraud or commercial motives a misdemeanor, and exempts the use of non-abusive fake I.D. information. 

H.R. 545, the ‘‘Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement 

and Treatment Act of 2007’’ corrects an oversight in the Combat 

Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which we passed in the 

last counsel as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. 

Included in the combat meth act were provisions that authorized 

funding for three important grant programs within the Department 

of Justice. Although Native American tribes were included as an eligible grant recipient under one of the programs, they were unintentionally left out of two other programs, and this bill will correct 

that oversight. 

Finally, we will be considering H.R. 137, the ‘‘Animal Fighting 

Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.’’ H.R. 137 addresses the 

growing program of staged animal fighting in this country. It increases the penalties under current Federal law for transporting 

animals in interstate commerce for the purpose of fighting and for 

17

the interstate and foreign commence in knives and gaffs designed 

to be used in cock fighting. 

Specifically, H.R. 137 makes violations of the law a felony punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Currently, these offenses are 

limited to misdemeanor treatment with the possibility of a fine and 

up to 1 year of imprisonment. Most States have made all staged 

animal fighting illegal. 

Just two States allow cock fighting. Virginia, unfortunately, is 

one of them, although it prohibits wagering on such fights. However, the Virginia Senate just recently passed a bill in the current 

legislative session that would also make cock fighting illegal. 

H.R. 137 currently has close to 300 co-sponsors. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on these important bills and to considering the legislation and markup following 

the hearing. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, my friend and neighbor, the Honorable Randy 

Forbes, who represents Virginia’s 4th Congressional District. 

Representative Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me, first of all, 

compliment the members of your caucus for selecting you as the 

Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee. I look forward to working 

with you, as we have done together on so many issues back at 

home in Virginia, and to find some bipartisan support for some of 

these important crime measures. 

I also want to say today that, because we know there are some 

votes that are going to be coming up pretty soon and we have got 

a huge panel of witnesses, I would like to simply insert in the 

record my opening remarks. 

But there is one point I would like to raise. As you know, today 

we will be marking up three bills immediately following the legislative hearing. And in the previous Congress, the Crime Subcommittee eventually changed its practice to hold markups on a 

separate day from legislative hearings on the same measure. 

And that makes good sense, since the hearing is to review the 

legislation and take testimony on possible changes or improvements. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that you intend to 

continue the policy of same-day markups, and that such scheduling 

will be limited to situations where you and I can agree to such a 

schedule or where there is an emergency requiring such scheduling. 

I want to thank you for working with us on this issue, and I appreciate, as always, your cooperation in confirming this arrangement. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would yield, that is the intent. 

These bills have had hearings in the previous Congress and did not 

appear to need an additional hearing. I insisted that we have a 

hearing to maintain regular order, and it is my intent to have them 

on separate days so that we can get the full value of the hearing. 

And if there had been any objection on this process today, we 

would have had a separate day. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

18

Mr. SCOTT. If there are no other opening statements, we have a 

distinguished panel of witnesses here before us to help us consider 

the important issues that are currently before us. 

Our first witness, the Honorable Tim Murphy, has represented 

Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District since 2003. He currently sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee and also 

serves as co-chair of both the Congressional Mental Health Caucus 

and the 21st Century Health Care Caucus. Representative Murphy 

has a B.A. from Wheeling Jesuit University, a master’s degree from 

Cleveland State University, and a doctorate from the University of 

Pittsburgh. 

Our next witness is the Honorable Tom Udall, a Member of the 

United States House of Representatives from New Mexico’s 3rd 

Congressional District since 1995. He serves on the Resources, 

Small Business and Veterans Affairs Committees. He is also vice 

chairman of the House Native American Caucus. He received a 

B.A. from Prescott College in 1970, a bachelor of laws from Cambridge in 1975, and a J.D. from the University of New Mexico Law 

School in 1977. 

Congressman Murphy will be discussing H.R. 740, the PHONE 

Act. Congressman Udall will be discussing H.R. 545, the ‘‘Native 

American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 

2007.’’

And we will hear from them first and ask them questions. They 

can remain if they want or leave if they want, but we would like 

to have them make their statements at this time. 

Congressman Murphy? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you 

again. It was a pleasure working with you when together we dealt 

with the previous version of the PHONE Act, H.R. 5304. And I 

must say, as I re-read your work, I think you have taken a good 

bill and made it a lot better on something we desperately need to 

have passed here. 

Identity theft, as you know, is an increasingly critical problem 

for consumers. The FTC has said that some 10 million individuals 

are victims of identity theft and that consumer complaints come 

from 255,000 individuals across the States. 

Congress has repeatedly tried to prevent identity theft, most recently with the passage of H.R. 5304 in the final days of the 109th 

Congress. Unfortunately, with new technology comes new risks and 

new risks and new opportunities for criminals to skirt the law. 

And one of these technologies is call spoofing, or caller I.D. fraud, 

where one masks their identity by altering their outbound caller 

I.D. number in order to mislead the call recipient. Some may describe call spoofing as a way to maintain caller privacy. I believe 

it is nothing less than fraud. 

Stealing, masking or otherwise altering one’s caller I.D. to deceive is a new tool in the hands of criminals. The practice of caller 

I.D. fraud can be tremendously harmful to consumers. 

19

While we have tried in the past to use do not call lists to provide 

some privacy for citizens, some people have found a way to get 

around that by hijacking your phone number that can bypass that 

protection. 

I believe Congress must enact a law to penalize caller I.D. fraud 

perpetrators. This bill is particularly necessary to protect American 

families, the elderly and businesses, because illegally using another 

person’s phone number could have limitless unlawful applications. 

It doesn’t take much imagination to realize how this could be. A 

criminal could try to obtain personal financial information from individuals by using a bank’s phone number. An ex-spouse could harass a former wife or husband who has blocked calls from their line. 

A pedophile could stalk a child by stealing a school phone number or the phone number of a friend of this child. A sexual predator 

can use a doctor’s office phone number. A terrorist can make 

threats to government. The list goes on and on. 

But this is not just a possibility. There is actually several examples. One of them is laid out in an AARP Bulletin. I would be glad 

to pass this on, if you wish, Mr. Chairman, for inclusion in the 

record, reported cases in which people received calls that they 

made false claims that they missed jury duty. 

To avoid prosecution, the individuals were asked for their Social 

Security number and other personal information. The phone number that appeared on their caller I.D., it was the local courthouse, 

so people assumed the caller was telling the truth. 

A security company has stated that criminals have accessed legal 

call spoofing Internet sites, such as this one over here to my side, 

in order to protect their identities while they bought stolen credit 

card numbers. They then used a wire service such as Western 

Union and a fake caller I.D. and ordered cash transfer money to 

themselves. 

SWAT teams have been called upon to surround empty buildings 

or other inhabited places, such as in New Brunswick, New Jersey, 

after police received a call from a woman who said she was being 

held hostage in an apartment. She was not in the apartment. The 

woman had intentionally used a false caller I.D. number. Imagine 

what might have happened. 

And I also note that some of these call spoofing sites also offer 

that they will disguise your voice as well as alter your phone number. 

For these reasons, I introduced H.R. 5304 in the last Congress. 

That provided some penalties up to $250,000 and some fines. In 

your current version, you have cleared up many of the ambiguities 

that existed in the first bill and made it clear what constitutes 

criminal activity and what is worthy of a fine, or imprisonment or 

both. 

I was pleased to work with the Subcommittee again this year to 

improve the PHONE Act by including the forfeiture of equipment 

used by criminals in call spoofing and adding call spoofing to lists 

of unlawful activities associated with money laundering. 

Today, this Subcommittee is proactively considering a good idea 

that addresses a problem before more serious tragedies occur. 

Today we have a chance to help stop crime, prevent identity theft 

and protect lives. 

20

I applaud the Chairman and the Ranking Member for making 

this legislation a priority of this Subcommittee. I would like to 

thank all of you on this Committee for working with me on this bill 

and for your commitment to the personal identity security of all 

Americans. 

And of course, I would be happy to answer any questions later 

that you might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Forbes, distinguished colleagues of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak before you today on behalf of updated 

legislation that I introduced in the 109th Congress, the Preventing Harassment 

through Outbound Number Enforcement Act, or the PHONE Act. 

Identity theft has become an increasingly critical problem for consumers. Last 

year the Federal Trade Commission revealed that 10 million individuals are victims 

of identity theft each year, and identity theft is the number one consumer complaint 

from over 255,000 individuals in each of the fifty states. The disastrous implications 

of identity theft for consumers include damaged credit and financial ruin, and the 

effects can tear apart families. 

Congress has repeatedly tried to prevent identity theft, most recently with the 

passage of my bill, H.R. 5304. Unfortunately, with new technology comes new risks 

and new opportunities for criminals to skirt the law. One of these technologies used 

by thieves is the practice of ‘‘call spoofing,’’ or ‘‘caller ID fraud,’’ where one masks 

their identity by altering their outbound caller ID number in order to mislead the 

call recipient. Some may describe call spoofing as a way to maintain caller privacy. 

But it is nothing less than fraud. 

Stealing, masking or otherwise altering one’s caller identification to deceive is a 

new tool in the hands of criminals. The practice of caller ID fraud can be tremendously harmful to consumers. 

Consider the effects of the false use of caller ID in other areas. Past federal and 

state efforts to block unwanted phone solicitations with ‘‘Do Not Call’’ lists was to 

provide some privacy for citizens. But when someone hijacks your phone number, 

they can bypass that protection. 

I believe Congress must enact a law to penalize caller ID fraud perpetrators. This 

bill is particularly necessary to protect American families, the elderly and businesses, because illegally using another person’s phone number could have limitless 

unlawful applications. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand how dangerous this practice could be for unlawful people:

• A criminal could try to obtain personal financial information from individuals 

by using a bank’s phone number,

• An ex-spouse could harass a former wife or husband who has blocked calls 

from the ex-spouse’s phone line,

• A pedophile could stalk a child by stealing a school phone number or the 

phone number of a friend of the child,

• A sexual predator could use a doctor’s office phone number, or

• A terrorist could make threats from a government phone number.

The criminal use of caller ID fraud is not just a possibility. Here are some real 

world examples of caller ID fraud that are real and very disturbing:

• The AARP Bulletin reported cases in which people received calls that made 

false claims that they missed jury duty. To avoid prosecution, these individuals were asked for their Social Security number and other personal information. The phone number that appeared on their caller ID was from the local 

courthouse, so people assumed the caller was telling the truth.

• The security company, Secure Science Corporation, has stated that criminals 

have accessed legal call spoofing Internet sites in order to protect their identities while they bought stolen credit card numbers. These individuals then 

called a money transfer service such as Western Union and used a fake Caller 

ID and a stolen credit card number to order cash transfers to themselves.

• In 2005, SWAT teams surrounded an empty building in New Brunswick, New 

Jersey, after police received a call from a woman who said she was being held 

21

hostage in an apartment. She was not in the apartment, and the woman had 

intentionally used a false caller ID. Imagine what might have happened.

For these reasons, I introduced H.R. 5304 in the 109th Congress to punish those 

who engage in the intentional practice of misleading others through caller ID fraud. 

Violators of the bill would be subject to a penalty of up to five years in prison and 

fines of $250,000. Unfortunately, pursuing these criminals is difficult and particularly resource intensive. 

In the 109th Congress, I also cosponsored H.R. 5126, the Truth in Caller ID Act. 

However, H.R. 5126 only asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to 

create a rule to prohibit caller ID fraud in six months. There are no penalties in 

the bill and the Senate did not pass this legislation. I also included an amendment 

to prompt the FCC to address the practice of caller ID fraud in H.R. 5672, the Fiscal 

Year 2007 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Act but Congress 

was unable to sign H.R. 5672 into law. I believe that my bill, H.R. 5304, appropriately went further by amending criminal law to fully protect Americans from the 

practice of caller ID fraud, and the House agreed when we passed H.R 5304 in the 

109th Congress. I was pleased to work with the Subcommittee again this year to 

improve the PHONE Act by including the forfeiture of equipment used by criminals 

in call spoofing and adding call spoofing to the list of unlawful activities associated 

with money laundering. 

Over the years, Congress has been criticized as a reactive institution. Today, this 

subcommittee is proactively considering a good idea that addresses a problem before 

more serious tragedies occur. Today we have a chance to help stop crime, prevent 

identity theft and protect lives. 

I applaud the chairman for making this legislation a priority of his subcommittee. 

I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for 

working with me on this bill and for their commitment to the personal identity security of all Americans. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. UDALL. Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes, thank 

you for the opportunity to speak about the methamphetamine epidemic on Native American lands and my bill, which aims to give 

tribes resources to combat this ongoing situation. 

The manufacture and use of meth is one of the fastest growing 

drug problems in the nation. Meth is easy to make, with the recipe 

easily available on the Internet and many of its ingredients being 

common to household products. 

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, there were 

over 12,000 clandestine laboratory incidents in 48 States in 2005. 

In addition to its production throughout the country, a substantial amount of meth is smuggled into the country. The amount of 

methamphetamine seized at or between the United States and the 

Mexico border ports of entry increased by more than 75 percent 

from 2002 to 2004. 

While increased regulation of the sale and use of meth’s precursor chemicals has recently led to a decline in domestic production, drug traffickers have supplanted this decrease with meth produced in other countries. 

Unfortunately, the meth situation has been disproportionately 

worse in Native American communities. The 2005 National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health reported, ‘‘Past-year methamphetamine 

use rate of 1.7 percent for American Indians and Alaskan Natives 

and 2.2 percent for Native Hawaiians.’’

Compare this to use rates for other ethnicities: .7 percent for 

Whites, .5 percent for Hispanics, .2 percent for Asians, and .1 percent for African Americans. 

22

Additionally, while conducting the National Methamphetamine 

Initiative Survey of Native American law enforcement agencies, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs’ first question was, ‘‘What drug poses the 

greatest threat to your reservation?’’

Seventy-four percent of all respondents indicated that meth 

posed the greatest threat to their communities. Placing a very distant second to meth was marijuana, at 11 percent. 

Congress has worked to address the growing methamphetamine 

epidemic. Last year Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act as part of the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. 

The meth provisions were designed to control and regulate the 

availability of meth and its precursor ingredients, to help with lab 

cleanup. It also authorized funding for three important grant programs: the COPS Meth Hot Spots program, the Drug-Endangered 

Children program, and the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders program. 

Unfortunately, the tribal governments were unintentionally left 

out as possible applicants for the Hot Spots and Drug-Endangered 

Children’s programs. 

Additionally, while tribes were included as eligible applicants for 

the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders Grant Program, 

clarifying language is needed to ensure there is ample coordination 

with tribal service providers. 

My legislation, the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act, seeks to rectify this by ensuring that, 

consistent with tribal sovereignty, tribes can apply for the Hot 

Spots and Drug-Endangered Children grant programs. 

It also guarantees greater coordination with tribal service providers in the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders grant program. 

Before I conclude, I want to take a minute to thank Representative Dale Kildee, who is lead co-sponsor of this legislation, not only 

for his support but for his work on this issue during the last Congress. 

This is one of the many critically important issues Mr. Kildee 

has championed as co-chair of the Congressional Native American 

Caucus. I am honored to be one of Mr. Kildee’s co-vice chairs on 

the caucus and honored to work with him on this legislation. 

I also want to acknowledge Navajo Nation vice president Ben 

Shelly. As vice president of one of the largest tribes in the United 

States, I believe he will be able to share with us some valuable insight on this growing issue, as well as how it is being dealt with 

at the local level. 

I would like to thank him for his willingness to travel out here 

to testify on the importance of this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, tribes have access to these programs to combat 

the meth epidemic on their lands and in their communities. 

I urge the Members of the Committee to pass this legislation and 

thank you once again for holding this hearing and for allowing me 

to testify. 

And I welcome any questions from Members of the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

23

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes: 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the methamphetamine epidemic on 

Native American lands, and my bill, which aims to give tribes resources to combat 

this ongoing situation. 

The manufacturing and use of meth is one of the fastest growing drug problems 

in the nation. It is easy to make, with the recipe readily available on the internet 

and many of its ingredients being common household products. In 2005, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration, along with state and local law enforcement officials, 

counted over twelve thousand clandestine laboratory incidents in forty-eight states. 

In addition to its production throughout the country, a substantial amount of 

meth is smuggled into the country. The amount of methamphetamine seized at or 

between United States and Mexico border ports of entry increased by more than 

seventy-five percent from 2002 to 2004. There has been a recent decline in domestic 

production due to increased regulation of the sale and use of the chemicals that go 

into the creation of meth. Drug traffickers, however, have supplanted this decrease 

with meth produced in other countries. In total, the DEA seized over two thousand 

kilograms of meth in 2005. 

While the facts and statistics at a nationwide level are disturbing enough, the situation has been disproportionately worse in Native American communities. The 

2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported a ‘‘past year methamphetamine use’’ rate of 1.7 percent for American Indians and Alaskan Natives and 2.2 

percent for Native Hawaiians. Compare this to use rates for other ethnicities—.7% 

for whites, .5 percent for Hispanics, .2 percent for Asians, and .1 percent for African 

Americans. Additionally, while conducting the National Methamphetamine Initiative Survey of Native American law enforcement agencies, the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ first question was ‘‘What drug poses the greatest threat to your reservation?’’ 

Seventy-four percent of all respondents indicated that meth posed the greatest 

threat to their communities. Placing a very distant second to meth was marijuana, 

at eleven percent. 

Congress has taken steps to address the growing methamphetamine epidemic. 

Last year Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act as part of 

the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation included provisions 

designed to control and regulate the availability of meth and its precursor ingredients and to expand measures related to lab cleanup. It also authorized funding for 

three important grant programs—the COPS Meth Hot Spots program, the Drug-Endangered Children program, and the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders program. 

The Hot Spots program specifically provides funding for a broad range of initiatives designed to assist state and local law enforcement in undertaking anti-methamphetamine initiatives. The Drug-Endangered Children Grant Program provides 

comprehensive services to assist children who live in a home where meth has been 

used, manufactured and sold. The Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders Grant 

Program is designed to facilitate cooperation between the criminal justice, child welfare, and substance abuse systems in order to reduce the use of drugs by pregnant 

women and those with dependant children. 

These are all extremely important programs, and unfortunately, tribal governments were unintentionally left out as possible applicants for both the Hot Spots 

and Drug-Endangered Children programs. And while tribes were included as eligible applicants for the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders Grant Program, 

clarifying language is needed to ensure there is ample coordination with tribal service providers. 

It is for these reasons, that I introduced the Native American Methamphetamine 

Enforcement and Treatment Act. This legislation seeks to ensure that, consistent 

with tribal sovereignty, tribes can apply for the Hot Spots and Drug-Endangered 

Children Grant Programs. It also ensures greater coordination with tribal service 

providers in the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders Grant Program. 

Mr. Chairman, tribes must have access to these programs to combat the meth epidemic on their lands and in their communities. Thank you once again for holding 

this hearing and for allowing me to testify. I welcome any questions from the Members of the Committee, as well as any suggestions or wisdom on additional ways address this situation. 

Thank you.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

24

We have been joined on the Subcommittee—Representative Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin was here a minute ago; Representative 

Coble, the former Chairman of the Subcommittee, from North 

Carolina; Representative Delahunt from Massachusetts; Representative Nadler from New York; Representative Johnson from Georgia. 

I don’t have any questions. I will yield to Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment both Congressman Murphy and also Congressman Udall for the hard work they 

have had on these two bills, and also for the work that our staffs 

have done in coordinating them and bringing them together. 

I did have a question. Congressman Murphy, have you had any 

experience with call spoofing in your office? 

Mr. MURPHY. Actually, we did. An organization, we don’t know 

who they were, ended up using our congressional office phone number to make calls to constituents. 

Now, it is part of the American way to provide freedom of speech. 

It is a whole other thing to pose as a congressman’s office. And of 

course, we were then inundated with calls complaining why we are 

calling people’s homes with these messages. 

That can certainly be done not only with Members of Congress 

but under any circumstance. You heard from Chairman Scott, 

about how someone might use this as a fake number when they are 

making other sales pitches, et cetera. 

So it is just another form of harassment that is out there. 

Mr. FORBES. I have also heard that they can use Web sites for 

call spoofing, and have you heard anything about that? And how 

do they go about doing that? 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, what I have here is one particular company 

that advertises you can change your voice. It is very simple. You 

just call a number and use a PIN number, and then you can type 

in whatever number you want, be it a neighbor, a friend, an 

enemy, the White House, whatever that might be. 

While doing this, what these sites also do is they block your ability to use *57, which is tracing the call; *69, the last call returned; 

anonymous call rejection; or detailed billing. So they can really be 

very anonymous. 

And think of what this means, then, if someone calls a police department with a false alarm or a fire department, or if it is someone harassing an individual. You simply cannot react quickly without trying to find out Web site or what procedure was done, and 

even law enforcement officials find it difficult. 

There is no immediate response that they can have to trace this 

down. 

Mr. FORBES. And it is my understanding that there is not at this 

time any current Federal statute that deals with spoofing, is 

that——

Mr. MURPHY. There is none. Last year, Congress passed some 

legislation calling upon the FCC to investigate this, and there was 

another bill that—these didn’t really go through the Senate, and 

this is the first one that really puts penalties on those procedures. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. 

25

And, Congressman Udall, can you tell us what sort of benefits 

can we expect to see on Native American lands from these grants? 

How will they utilize some of these grants? 

Mr. UDALL. Ranking Member Forbes, I think when you are talking about Hot Spot grants and the other grants that are mentioned 

here, I would expect Native American communities to use these 

like other communities would, to go out, if there is a meth lab that 

has been busted, and there is a polluting leftover lab there, to utilize that to help the cleanup. 

In terms of the children grant, you are dealing with a very, very 

sensitive situation where there is a bust that goes down and there 

are children that are a part of it. For law enforcement to work with 

the children that are part of that and try to make sure they are 

well taken care of, that they are not impacted in a way that hurts 

them in any way—that kind of effort. 

And I would expect that you would see a much healthier, safer 

community as a result of the utilization of these grants on Native 

American land. 

Mr. FORBES. And I know we have some other fine witnesses that 

are going to be testifying in just a few moments, but it is my understanding there has been requests and demands from the Native 

American governments for this kind of aid, is that fair to say? 

Mr. UDALL. Yes, that is fair to say, and as probably many of you 

on this Committee know, frequently it is the case that the trust relationship between the Federal Government and the tribes—that in 

various pieces of legislation and in the law today—tribes are allowed to go directly to Federal agencies and get grants rather than 

having to go through the States. 

And that has been a trend, I think, in place for 15 years or 20 

years, and really what we are doing is just updating that trend. 

You will hear from the vice president of the Navajo Nation, Ben 

Shelly, who I mentioned in my statement. He will talk about the 

difference between going through a State and the tribe being able 

to apply directly and how much that makes a difference to them. 

Mr. FORBES. Good. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I have no questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 

Mr. Udall, I realize some grant funds to tribal governments I 

think have been in the pipeline. Do the tribal governments in your 

district have the resources to investigate and apprehend meth dealers? 

Mr. UDALL. It is a mix, to answer your question directly, on 

whether or not they have the resources. Generally, the tribes in my 

jurisdiction have misdemeanor jurisdiction to do criminal investigations. 

On the other hand, felonies are handled under the Major Crimes 

Act through the U.S. Attorney’s Office and in cooperation with the 

BIA and other law enforcement authorities. 

26

And so generally, it depends on the characterization of the specific crime and what crime it is and where the locus of that crime 

is in order to answer those questions. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. Except to congratulate Congressman Udall and 

Congressman Murphy, I will emulate the Chairman and say I have 

no questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Udall, you can remain or leave. 

It is your decision. But we are going to go on with the other witnesses. And if you want to remain available for questions, that is 

a decision you can make. 

Our next witness is Mr. Barry Sabin, the deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, United States Department of 

Justice. Since January 2006 he has been responsible for overseeing 

the fraud section, criminal appellate section, gang squad and capital case unit. Prior to that, he served as the chief of the criminal 

division’s counterterrorism section and has been a Federal prosecutor since 1990. He received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from 

the University of Pennsylvania and his law degree from New York 

University School of Law. 

Then we have Mr. Ben Shelly, vice president, Navajo Nation, 

Window Rock, Arizona. Prior to holding his current office, he 

served as a delegate to the Navajo Nation Council for 8 years, 

spent 4 years as chairman of its budget and finance committee. 

We then will have Mr. Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the 

Humane Society of the United States. During his tenure, he has 

utilized a wide variety of strategies, including political strategies 

such as ballot initiatives and referendums, to successfully further 

his organization’s goals. In recognition of his efforts, he was named 

2005 Executive of the Year by NonProfit Times. He received his 

bachelor’s degree from Yale University in 1987. 

Our final witness will be Mr. Jerry Leber, president of the 

United Gamefowl Breeders Association. He served his community 

for 32 years as an educator at the university and high school levels. 

During that time, he also was very active in the gamefowl community, which led him to his current position. 

In light of the vote, I think we will just wait until we have voted, 

just recess for a few minutes. It will probably take about 20 minutes for us to get back, so we will recess until we can get back. It 

will be about 20 minutes. 

The Committee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SCOTT. The Committee will come to order. 

We will begin with the testimony from Mr. Sabin. 

27

TESTIMONY OF BARRY SABIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. SABIN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Forbes, Members of the Subcommittee. It is my pleasure to appear 

before you today to discuss legislation seeking to prevent caller I.D. 

spoofing. 

We appreciate the work of Congressman Murphy last session and 

his ongoing efforts today in support of this issue. 

The United States Department of Justice supports congressional 

action such as this to provide law enforcement additional tools and 

penalty provisions so as to protect our citizens and our country 

from identity thieves, stalkers and other criminals. 

Caller I.D. spoofing is the modification of caller I.D. information 

that causes the telephone network to display a number and other 

information on the recipient’s caller I.D. display that is not the 

number of the actual caller. 

Recently, caller I.D. spoofing services have become widely available, greatly increasing the number of people who have access to 

this tool to deceive others. 

By outlawing the misuse of caller I.D. spoofing, this bill, with 

modifications we have respectfully recommended, can improve the 

Justice Department’s ability to prevent and prosecute crimes ranging from identity theft to harassment to pretexting. 

Although the widespread availability of these services is relatively new, we are already seeing criminals use caller I.D. spoofing to facilitate crime, and we fear they could use it to hamper investigations. 

For example, caller I.D. spoofing can lend credibility to a criminal trying to trick an individual into giving up private information, 

such as a credit card number or Social Security number. 

By making it appear that the call is coming from a legitimate 

charity or bank, from a business’s customer, or even from the office 

of a political campaign, criminals can more easily fool victims into 

giving up private information. 

Another example is a pretexter, who calls a telephone company 

pretending to be a subscriber and tries to obtain the subscriber’s 

private telephone records. If the caller I.D. information matches the 

subscriber’s home telephone number, the pretexter can more easily 

gain access to those private records. 

Caller I.D. spoofing can also create opportunities for abusers who 

could not otherwise contact their victims to reach into those victims’ homes and further harass them. 

Misleading caller identification information could cause a victim 

to accept a call they would otherwise avoid or circumvent automatic call-blocking that would have prevented the harassing call 

from being connected. 

Obviously, caller I.D. spoofing can help to hide the identity of a 

criminal, but it can go further, actually defeating security measures that would have prevented a crime. 

Businesses sometimes use caller I.D. information as part of their 

fraud prevention measures, as a way of confirming the identity of 

the caller. If the information fed into these systems is inaccurate, 

the security measures might be defeated and allow transactions or 

28

access to private information that would otherwise have not been 

permitted. 

Moreover, caller I.D. spoofing services could complicate criminal 

investigations. For example, if kidnappers were to use caller I.D. 

spoofing, law enforcement involved in fast-moving investigations 

could lose valuable time chasing down the wrong path. 

These concerns are not theoretical. We know that criminals are 

using these caller I.D. spoofing services to further their crimes 

today. As noted in my written prepared statement, there is the 

matter in southern California of James Turner Hopper, who pleaded guilty to several Federal felony offenses involving identity theft 

and was sentenced to 30 months’ incarceration. 

Hopper admitted that he obtained over 100 credit card numbers 

and associated identity information and used caller I.D. spoofing 

more than 150 times to steal money. 

In another instance, a criminal used caller I.D. spoofing and 

voice-alteration software to repeatedly call a police officer and 

threaten to kill the officer and his family. Because the criminal 

spoofed the caller-ID, it became very difficult to determine the 

source of the calls. 

Addressing the problem, of course, must be done carefully. We 

note that there is no present requirement that providers of caller 

I.D. spoofing services make any effort to verify that the person requesting to place a call with altered caller I.D. has any right to use 

the number requested. The lack of verification allows the misuses 

I have described. 

Moreover, some claim that caller I.D. spoofing serves to protect 

people’s privacy, but a caller who wishes to remain anonymous already has an option to use caller I.D. blocking, preventing his or 

her number from being known. 

Simply put, the caller gets to make a choice about whether to reveal his or her number, and the called party gets to make a choice 

about whether to accept an anonymous call. Transmitting information that misleads or deceives the called party does not provide any 

additional privacy benefit. 

Overall, the Justice Department believes that this bill is narrowly targeted at harmful uses of caller I.D. and supports Congress 

providing the department the further ability to combat the threats 

caused by caller I.D. spoofing. 

The Justice Department has a number of recommendations that 

it believes will make the bill stronger and more effective. We have 

provided these suggestions separately and in detail. 

Among other things, the department suggests clarifying the description of the offense, modifying the punishment provision, revising the law enforcement provision to be an exception rather than 

an affirmative defense, and other suggested technical recommendations. 

The Department of Justice appreciates this subCommittee’s leadership in making sure that our country’s laws meet this new challenge. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for your 

continuing support. 

I am happy to try and answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sabin follows:]

29

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARRY M. SABIN


BMS0001.eps
30


BMS0002.eps
31


BMS0003.eps
32


BMS0004.eps
33


BMS0005.eps
34


BMS0006.eps
35


BMS0007.eps
36


BMS0008.eps
37


BMS0009.eps
38


BMS0010.eps
39


BMS0011.eps
40

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you. 

And I forgot to remind everybody—Mr. Sabin, I appreciate you 

keeping your remarks to 5 minutes. 

I forgot to remind everyone that we would appreciate it if you 

would keep your remarks to 5 minutes. I appreciate you doing so. 

Mr. Shelly? 

TESTIMONY OF BEN SHELLY, VICE PRESIDENT,

NAVAJO NATION, WINDOW ROCK, AZ 

Mr. SHELLY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee on Crime, thank you for inviting me 

to testify. 

I am Ben Shelly, vice president of the Navajo Nation. On behalf 

of the Navajo Nation, I am honored to testify on the critical need 

to address the meth abuse in Indian Country. 

A year ago, there was a meth-related execution-style triple homicide on the Navajo Nation. This happened in the small community 

of Hogback, New Mexico within sight of the community’s chapter 

house. The first victim was shot 14 times. The second was shot 

nine times. And the third had seven gunshot wounds and a close 

contact wound to her head. The trial of the accused suspect is 

about to begin. 

Two months later, in March 2006, an 81-year-old Navajo grandmother, her 63-year-old daughter, and her 39-year-old granddaughter were arrested and charged with criminal possession with 

intent to distribute meth. Police raided their home in the tiny community of Felcon, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation. 

Four years ago, there were 14 meth-related deaths in Tuba City, 

Arizona, a Navajo town of 9,000. Back then, a study showed that 

12 percent of the Tuba City teens used meth and 17 percent of 

town adults were also using. 

According to the chief of special investigation for the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, meth is the drug of choice in Indian Country. Crystal meth ranked second only to marijuana among illegal drug use 

on native land. 

The Navajo Area Indian Health Service tells us that 2,167 patients were treated for meth in the year 2000. Over an 8-month period in 2004, that rose to 4,077 patients. 

In 2005, 40 percent of all drug-related calls for police assistance 

within the seven districts of the Navajo department of law enforcement were for meth use and trafficking. 

The FBI tells us that 40 percent of all violent crime committed 

on the Navajo Nation are directly related to meth use and trafficking. 

In 2006, there were 32 Federal indictments involving the distribution of meth in the Navajo Nation. Congressmen, as time goes 

on, the numbers reflecting police calls—percentage—assault, death 

and murder related to meth will likely go up. 

What we are faced with is the national epidemic of meth use, 

with all of its critical medical problems, violent crime, uncontrolled 

rage, suicide and murder, not to mention the simple problem of incarceration, broken lives and families. 

It bores deep into the traditional Native American communities 

of the North America. Unfortunately, the Navajo Nation was slow 

41

to act to this invasion. But it acted. In February 2005, the Navajo 

Nation council enacted legislation to prohibit the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession and use of meth. 

Even with this, tribal resource and facilities are too limited to 

implement the law to its fullest extent. We need the help that the 

Native American Meth Enforcement and Treatment Act can give 

us. 

Without question, this Federal law is in the best interest of all 

Native American and Alaska natives to amend the Omnibus Crime 

Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 in order to allow native people 

to receive grants to confront the use of meth. 

Throughout Indian Country and particularly the Navajo Nation, 

there is a critical need for increased funding for prevention, education, intervention, treatment service, law enforcement, aftercare 

and maintenance programs for those who use and abuse meth and 

for the family and community that are affected by the production 

and distribution of meth. 

The Navajo Nation strongly supports amending the Combat 

Meth Epidemic Act of 2005 as part of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. The measure will allow tribal participation for three 

grant program within the Department of Justice: the COP Hot Spot 

program, the Drug-Endangered Children program, and the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders program. Tribal participation will aid in the fight against the meth epidemic. 

Congressmen, thank you for providing the Navajo Nation the opportunity to testify and submit its written testimony on H.R. 545, 

the Native American Meth Enforcement Treatment Act of 2007. 

We look forward to continued discussion to bear some partnership opportunity that will help Indian tribe address meth in the Indian Country. And we thank you very much, Congressmen. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shelly follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEN SHELLY

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, thank you for inviting me to testify. 

My name is Ben Shelly, Vice President of the Navajo Nation. On behalf of the 

Navajo Nation, I am honored to testify concerning H.R. 545, the Native American 

Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007. The Navajo Nation appreciates the subcommittee’s interest on the impact of methamphetamines in Indian 

Country. The Navajo Nation believes that it is in the best interest of Native American and Alaska Natives to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 

of 1968 to provide opportunities for Tribes to receive grants to combat the use of 

methamphetamine. 

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

The Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, is responsible for providing federal health services to Native 

Americans and Alaska Natives. The Navajo Area Indian Health Service (Service) is 

one of the IHS’ 12 area offices, and is the principal health care provider on the Navajo Nation. The Service serves the Navajo Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute 

Tribe, and other eligible beneficiaries through inpatient, outpatient, contracts for 

specialized care, Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act contract 

providers, and an urban Indian health program. 

The health care network includes six hospitals, six health centers, fifteen health 

stations and twenty-two dental clinics. The Service is responsible for providing 

health care services to nearly 237,000 users; spending $1,600 per person per year 

for comprehensive health services in its hospitals and health clinics. This is about 

42

50 percent below the per person expenditures by public and private health insurance plans. The Service receives funding that only meets approximately 54 percent 

of the health needs for the patient population it serves, and provides health care 

services at a level of only $1,187 per person. As a point of reference, the federal government spends more than twice this amount on health care for federal prisoners. 

NAVAJO DIVISION OF HEALTH

In 1977, the Navajo Nation Council established the Navajo Division of Health 

(NDOH) to plan, develop, promote, maintain, preserve, and regulate the overall 

health, wellness and fitness programs for Navajo population. The NDOH operates 

with Federal, State and Tribal resources in the delivery of health services to the 

Navajo Nation. In fiscal year 2006, the NDOH had a budget of about $61 million 

and employed 995 health professional, paraprofessional and technical personnel stationed throughout the Navajo Nation. 

In addition to providing health care services to the Navajo people, NDOH advocates for enlarging health delivery capacity and improving public health concerns 

such as health promotion/disease prevention, alcohol and substance abuse, elder 

care, and diabetes prevention to name a few. NDOH promotes individual and family 

health, family unity and family support to prevent disease and promote health, 

wellness and fitness. An eight member Health and Social Services Committee of the 

Navajo Nation Council serves as the legislative oversight committee for NDOH. 

HEALTH CARE DISPARITIES

In spite of the ongoing goals of the US Department of Health and Human Services, Navajos and other Native Americans continue to experience tremendous disparities in health care distribution and funding. Federal funding for Indian health 

care has not kept pace with factors such as the rising costs of health care, increasing costs of pharmaceuticals, and competitive salaries for recruitment and retention 

of qualified health care professionals. The figure below depicts the impact of these 

disparities on the local Navajo Nation health care system.

While Navajo people compare favorably in the following health areas, analysis of 

30-year data indicates favorable Navajo rates are approaching the general population rates, and may surpass the U.S. rates over time as they have for other statistics.

IMPACT OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN INDIAN COUNTRY

The escalating problem of methamphetamine is affecting the entire nation and 

has reached epidemic levels in rural communities including Indian Country. Methamphetamine use and production places tremendous burden on the already severely 

under-funded Indian health care system and law enforcement. While alcohol and 

substance abuse has been a chronic disease, the impact of methamphetamine is considerably greater due to the addictive and deadly nature of the drug. 


BS1.eps BS2.eps
43

In April 2006, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on ‘‘The 

Problem of Methamphetamine in Indian Country’’ in which various Federal officials 

and Tribal leaders testified. At that hearing, the Indian Health Service described 

the situation as a crisis for individuals, families, communities, agencies, and governments across the country. The Indian Health Service referenced information from 

a September 2005 report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health. That report revealed that in 2004 

an estimated 1.4 million persons aged 12 or older had used methamphetamine in 

the past year, and 600,000 had used it in the past month. The highest rates of past 

year methamphetamine use were found among Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. Methamphetamine use among Native Americans and Alaska Natives rated 

third highest at 1.7 percent. The Federal government has sufficient alarming data 

on methamphetamine abuse in Indian Country to declare a state of emergency and 

provide adequate resources and support to combat this devastating problem in partnership with tribes, states, local agencies and communities. 

To combat the methamphetamine problem at the tribal level, in February 2005, 

the Navajo Nation Council enacted legislation prohibiting the manufacturing, distribution, sale, possession and use of methamphetamine. However, due to funding 

constraints and severe shortage of detention facilities, it is difficult to enforce the 

methamphetamine law and hold inmates who violate the tribal law. The Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS) is concerned with the lack of adequate jails and bed 

spaces needed to house the growing number of offenders. With over 30,000 annual 

arrests, the NDPS system could only house 100 inmates at one time. Many of these 

detention centers were built over 25 years and do not meet current building codes. 

The Navajo Department of Law Enforcement (NDLE) was established to maintain 

law and order by enforcing applicable criminal laws and safeguarding the lives and 

property of people on the Navajo Nation. The NDLE apprehends and incarcerates 

all misdemeanor offenders in Navajo Nation detention facilities, and refers all felony 

offenders for prosecution through the Federal Judicial System. In fiscal year 2006, 

the NDLE employed 48 criminal investigators and approximately 373 uniform officers. The Department’s $25 million budget covers three Law Enforcement Programs 

including Detention, Criminal Investigation and Police. 

The NDLE had been combating methamphetamine related problems with the 

Navajo Nation’s limited resources until the U.S. Department of Justice awarded the 

NDLE an $181,000 Community Oriented Policing (COP) grant. This COP grant provided the ability of the NDLE to purchase equipment and support operational costs. 

In addition, Arizona Governor Napolitano provided $20,000 in funding to support 

the Coalition of the Navajo Nation. The Coalition works with Arizona Navajo communities to encourage coordination between communities and programs to address 

methamphetamine problems 

As an illustration of the impacts of methamphetamine on the Navajo People, in 

January 2006, a triple homicide in Hogback, New Mexico involved methamphetamine use in which the first victim had been shot 14 times, the second had been 

shot 9 times, and the third 7 gunshot wounds and a close contact wound to her 

head. Unfortunately, the tragedy of methamphetamine use does not discriminate 

based on age. In March 2006, an 81 year old grandmother, her 63 year old daughter, 

and her 39 year old granddaughter were all charged with criminal possession with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine, and other controlled substances, after police 

raided their home. 

As a means to address the methamphetamine problems on the Navajo Nation, the 

Navajo Division of Health’s Department of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS) directed its personnel to find alternative methods to address the problems associated 

with the use and production of methamphetamine in Navajo communities. Subsequently, several methamphetamine task forces comprising of community members 

and various tribal programs were established to coordinate and address the methamphetamine-related problems. The DBHS initiated methamphetamine abatement 

activities including the use of media such as radio station and newspaper, and presentations at various communities throughout the Navajo Nation. These mass prevention activities lead to the production of a film ‘‘G: Methamphetamine on the Navajo Reservation.’’ These activities generated national attention such as a story entitled, On Navajo Reservation, a New Tool in the Fight Against Drugs, which was featured in The New York Times on February 21, 2005

The DBHS staff provided presentations on the effects of methamphetamine use 

at various locations around the Navajo Nation. At the conclusion of each presentation, the staff received stories from the audience regarding the effects of methamphetamine. In one case, an individual reported that her niece had begun hearing 

things one evening and claimed the walls were bugged. She tore down the walls of 

their home with a hammer and hatchet, and eventually crawled into the ceiling in 

44

search of the listening devices. Unfortunately, the ceiling was weak and she fell 

through to the floor below. Another individual reported an incident involving a teenager who did not know she was pregnant and had smoked methamphetamine until 

the ninth month of her pregnancy. After the teenager got sick, she ended up in the 

emergency room where doctors found her deceased unborn baby. The teenager later 

died from her ordeal. 

From October 1997 through February 2005, Navajo Area Indian Health Service 

facilities reported 450 cases of ‘‘amphetamine-related’’ abuse in its facilities. (See 

table below). Generally, the majority of these are emergency room cases. Strikingly, 

during this period, 35 percent of the cases were reported by the Tuba City Indian 

Medical Center located in Arizona.

Additionally, the Navajo Area Indian Health Service reported that 2,167 individuals were treated for methamphetamine use in 2000, and 4,077 individuals were 

treated in eight months in 2004. The numbers unfortunately speak for themselves: 

this problem is growing exponentially. 

The IHS is not currently coding methamphetamine-use or abuse resulting in a 

pack of concrete data on which to draw an accurate picture of methamphetamine 

use. Generally, Navajo Area Indian Health Service facilities code visits and/or hospitalizations involving methamphetamine-use or abuse with one or two ICD-9 codes. 

The 450 cases reported in the table above resulted from a query of all visits limited 

to only the two codes and there may additional cases that exist which due to the 

lack of adequate coding are not reported 

According to the 2005 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) Report, 14 

percent of Native American high school students used methamphetamine one or 

more times during their life. 10,691 Native American students participated in the 

survey. The National YRBS monitors priority health risk behaviors that contribute 

to the leading causes of death, disability, and social problems among youth and 

adults in the United States. The National YRBS is conducted every two years and 

administered in public and private schools throughout the United States, including 

on Navajo Nation. 

The Navajo DBHS uses an integrated multi-disciplinary approach model using 

Western 12-step Recovery, Alternative Treatment/Navajo Traditional and Faith 

Based Initiative components. Currently, the Navajo DBHS’ services units include 13 

outpatient treatment centers, 2 adolescent treatment centers and one adult residential treatment center with additional services provided through contract services. 

One of the Navajo DBHS treatment centers located in Shiprock, New Mexico reported methamphetamine-related cases from the total enrolled cases during 2004 to 

2006. (See table below). 

Several major Navajo communities have formed Methamphetamine Community 

Task Forces (MCTFs) involving community members, direct services providers and 

government entities to create coalitions that address the needs arising from 

methamphetamines use. The Navajo Nation was one of the first Native Nations to 

take a proactive stance to act upon policy issues, options and recommendations in 

the areas of prevention, treatment, enforcement, and to develop best practices to 

educate the population with culturally appropriate programs. 

The MCTFs have developed various projects ranging from hosting expert forums, 

conducting audience interviews, facilitating group discussion to consider the full potential of strategies utilizing social marketing, media literacy or educational forums. 

Some of the other projects included:

• Printed brochures/facts sheets about methamphetamine.


BS3.eps
45

• Newsprint and printed posters about the negative effects of Methamphetamine.

• Radio and television public service announcements in the Navajo language.

• News articles in local newspapers, health publications, and magazines at local 

and national levels.

• Power point presentations at community centers, schools and interested organizations.

• Participated in the production of a film, ‘‘G: Methamphetamine on the Navajo 

Nation.’’

• Legislative Policy Changes—Each methamphetamine task force provided 

overwhelming support to make methamphetamine an illegal substance on the 

Navajo Nation.

• Radio Forums. A local Radio Station KTNN hosted a series of one-hour educational program about methamphetamine for a period of two months spring 

2006. The final program was broadcasted live for two hours in duration.

• Community conferences.

Throughout Indian Country and particularly the Navajo Nation, there is a need 

for not only an increase in funding but also access to federal and/or state funding 

for the development of prevention, education, intervention, treatment services and 

aftercare and maintenance programs. These programs are essential for those who 

use and abuse methamphetamine, and for families and communities who are affected by the production and distribution of methamphetamine. Any reduction in 

mental health and behavioral health services funding that are used to address this 

problem only increases the use, abuse, production and distribution of this drug. According to the FBI, about 40% of all violent crimes committed on the Navajo Nation 

are directly related to methamphetamine use and trafficking. In 2006, there were 

32 federal indictments pending trial involving the distribution of methamphetamine 

on the Navajo Nation. 

CONCLUSION

The Navajo Nation supports increased funding for Indian tribes across the United 

States. The enactment of H.R. 545 will provide opportunities for tribes to compete 

and access funds. The Navajo Nation recommends that an Indian set-aside provision 

based on the population, and incidence and prevalence rates be considered in the 

H.R. 545. 

Thank you for providing the Navajo Nation the opportunity to testify and submit 

its written testimony on H.R. 545, Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement 

and Treatment Act of 2007. We look forward to expanding and strengthening our 

regional and national partnership opportunities so that the Indian Nations will receive much needed resources to eradicate the use of methamphetamine in Indian 

Country.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Pacelle? 

TESTIMONY OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all the 

Members who are sitting here today for co-sponsoring H.R. 137, a 

bill to combat animal fighting. 

I am Wayne Pacelle. I am president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. HSUS has 10 million members and constituents in the U.S., one of every 30 Americans. We are strongly 

in support of this legislation. 

Every State in the country now has an animal cruelty statute 

that criminalizes malicious acts of cruelty toward animals. Dog 

fighting and cock fighting and hog-dog fighting clearly constitute 

animal cruelty. 

And in this country, at the State level, all 50 States have prohibitions against dog fighting, 48 States have prohibitions against 

cock fighting, and in 1976 when the Congress passed the law to 

46

criminalize the interstate transport of animals for fighting purposes, not a single State had felony-level penalties for these practices. 

Now, 48 States have felony-level penalties for dog fighting, 33 

States have felony-level penalties for cock fighting, and we are expecting to see a number of other States pass felony penalties this 

year. 

What we are simply asking this Committee to do is to upgrade 

the penalties for this existing Federal statute to crack down on the 

rampant practice of organized and staged animal fighting in this 

country. 

You know, there are lots of controversial and tough moral questions about how we treat animals in society, but staged animal 

fights where people are putting animals in a pit to fight to injury 

or death just for the amusement and illegal wagering purposes is 

not a tough moral question. 

Three basic points, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the 

Committee. First is the animal cruelty. This is not a practice where 

the animals just spar a little bit and live another day. There have 

been documented dog fights where the animals fight for 5 hours at 

a time. 

Blood loss is a cause of death. Shock is a cause of death. There 

are many other painful and traumatic deaths of these animals—

hog-dog fights where hogs are released in a pen and pit bulls are 

sicced upon the animals to attack the animal and bring the animal 

down, or cock fights where the birds have knives or ice-pick-like devices called gaffs strapped to their legs to enhance the bloodletting, 

punctured lungs, gouged eyes, and other grievous wounds, simply 

inflicted so people can be titillated by the bloodletting. 

We have seen time and time again, week after week—all you 

need to do is go to Google and do a search for ‘‘cock fighting’’ or 

‘‘dog fighting.’’ See the busts that occur across the country and see 

the connection between animal fighting and other forms of criminal 

activity. 

These operations are gateways to narcotics traffic, public corruption, illegal gambling and even violence toward people. Just a couple of weeks ago, we were involved in a bust in Virginia. It is important to note that North Carolina has a stronger anti-cock fighting law than Virginia. 

Two-thirds of the people came over the line into Virginia because 

of the weaker penalty in order to participate in these organized 

cock fights. There was $40,000 in cash confiscated. There were 

seven members of MS-13 and the Mexican mafia arrested at this 

cock fight. 

Homicides at cock fights and dog fights—there was a man murdered. He won $100,000 at a dog fight. Four armed men went to 

his home and killed him. 

Public corruption—we have seen police corrupted in Hawaii. The 

South Carolina commissioner of agriculture was on the take trying 

to protect a cock fighting ring in South Carolina. 

In Tennessee, the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agents 

were involved last year in shutting down two of the largest cock 

fighting pits in the country. And I want to just quote from the Federal court papers, just a couple of excerpts. 

47

‘‘On March 15, 2003, the cooperating witness reported observing 

approximately 182 cock fights at the Del Rio cock fight pit.’’ This 

is in one evening. ‘‘On average, between $2,000 and $20,000 was 

gambled by the spectators on each fight.’’ So if you assume an average of $10,000 per fight, 182 fights, $1.82 million wagered in a single night at a cock fight in east Tennessee. 

A second excerpt: ‘‘The cooperating witness observed a girl, ap- proximately 10 years old, with a stack of $100 bills gambling on 

several different cock fights. Vehicles were observed in the parking 

lot bearing license plates from North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky and Virginia, underscoring the nature 

of the interstate trade and traffic in these animals for fighting purposes.’’

A third quote: ‘‘On April 26, 2003, a cooperating witness attended 

the cock fights at the Del Rio pit and observed more than 100 cock 

fights. The witness observed persons betting on the cock fights to 

include 15 to 20 children of approximate ages 7 to 15 betting on 

several cock fights.’’ And on and on and on. 

Children, narcotics traffic, public corruption—how many cruelties 

perpetrated at these staged animal fights? For what purpose? You 

know, if you are going to use animals in society, there better be a 

compelling social purpose for it. But just to be titillated by the 

bloodletting is a terrible circumstance. 

And I will close in terms of—my third major point is the connection between cock fighting and bird flu and other avian diseases. 

The shipment of cock fighting birds is a threat to spread bird flu. 

It has been a vector for dissemination of the virus in Southeast 

Asia. 

We saw what happened in California with a less severe disease, 

Exotic Newcastle Disease. There were birds moved up from Mexico, 

and then it was a network of backyard cock fighting operations in 

southern California that helped to spread this. It cost the Federal Government $200 million to try to contain 

this disease. Twelve million birds had to be destroyed. That is why 

the poultry industry supports the legislation. It is why 500 law enforcement agencies support the legislation, local and State law enforcement agencies. That is another compelling reason to pass this 

legislation. 

Just absolutely in closing, Mr. Chairman, U.S. attorneys have 

told us they are reluctant to pursue cases because it is a misdemeanor. This Federal statute has already been upheld by several 

Federal courts. Animal fighting activities are rampant. The States 

do need assistance. 

This gives law enforcement at the Federal level and at the State 

level and the local level more tools to crack down on extreme animal cruelty and the criminal conduct associated with dog fighting, 

cock fighting and hog-dog fighting. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 137, 

the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. I am Wayne Pacelle, president 

and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal 

protection organization with 10 million members and constituents—one of every 30 

48

Americans. The HSUS has worked to combat animal fighting since our organization’s inception in 1954, conducting animal fighting workshops for law enforcement, 

publishing a manual for law enforcement personnel, and collaborating with law enforcement agencies in investigating and raiding illegal animal fights. Our investigators have been undercover at dogfights, cockfights, and hog-dog fights, documenting 

animal abuse, gambling, and other illegal conduct. We have worked extensively at 

the state and federal level in advocating for the adoption of strong anti-animal fighting laws, and we have sought funding and provided training for enforcement. 

I want to thank the primary authors of the legislation—Elton Gallegly, Earl 

Blumenauer, and Roscoe Bartlett, who have been dogged in their determination to 

crack down on this criminal conduct in the United States. I also thank Representatives Collin Peterson and Robert Andrews, who, at one time or another during the 

past seven years, have been authors or co-authors of bills or amendments in Congress to crack down on animal fighting activities. 

H.R. 137 has 300 cosponsors—more than two-thirds of the House—and included 

among the cosponsors are 30 members of the Committee on the Judiciary. An identical Senate companion bill, S. 261, introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell, John 

Ensign, Arlen Specter, and Dianne Feinstein, also has a long list of cosponsors, and 

a nearly identical bill was approved by unanimous consent in that chamber in April 

2005. The House and Senate bills have more than 500 endorsing groups, including 

all major humane organizations, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the 

National Chicken Council, the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, the 

National Sheriffs’ Association, and nearly 400 local law enforcement agencies covering all 50 states. The only organizations opposing the legislation are cockfighting, 

dogfighting, and hog-dog fighting organizations. No legitimate agricultural groups or 

law enforcement groups oppose this legislation, to our knowledge. 

HISTORY OF ANIMAL FIGHTING ISSUE IN CONGRESS AND

SCOPE OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Congress first passed legislation to combat animal fighting just more than 30 

years ago. In 1976, the House overwhelmingly passed amendments to the Animal 

Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) to create a new section of the Act to bar any interstate 

transport of animals for fighting purposes. The Senate passed legislation banning 

interstate transportation of dogs for fighting, but did not include the anti-cockfighting language. When the matter went to conference, lawmakers retained anticockfighting language, but created a loophole that allowed interstate transport of 

fighting birds to states, territories, and countries where cockfighting was legal. 

In 2002, the House and Senate approved provisions in the Farm bill to close that 

loophole and to ban any interstate or foreign transport of fighting animals, including 

birds. Both the House and the Senate also passed enforcement provisions to make 

any violation of the section a felony. (Representative Blumenauer and Senator Ensign were the authors of these amendments). But when the Farm Bill went to conference—even though the animal fighting provisions in the House and Senate bills 

were identical—the upgrade in the jail time was removed, and the penalties for violating the law remained as misdemeanor penalties. 

Under current federal law, it already is illegal to:

1) Sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture if the person 

knows that any animal was bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received 

in interstate or foreign commerce for participation in the fighting venture.

2) Knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive an animal in interstate or 

foreign commerce for purposes of participation in a fighting venture, regardless of the law in the destination.

3) Knowingly use the Postal Service or any interstate instrumentality to promote an animal fighting venture in the U.S. (e.g., through advertisement), 

unless the venture involves birds and the fight is to take place in a state 

that allows cockfighting. As explained on USDA’s website explaining the federal animal fighting law, ‘‘In no event may the Postal Service or other interstate instrumentality be used to transport an animal for purposes of having 

the animal participate in a fighting venture, even if such fighting is allowed 

in the destination state.’’

Current law applies to dogfighting, cockfighting, hog-dog fights, and other fights 

between animals ‘‘conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment,’’ 

with an explicit exemption for activities ‘‘the primary purpose of which involves the 

use of one or more animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting.’’

49

H.R. 137 seeks to import the animal fighting provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 

and place them in Title 18, and to build on them by authorizing jail time of up to 

three years for violations of federal animal fighting law, and to create a new crime 

prohibiting interstate and foreign commerce in the primary implements used in 

cockfights. 

FEDERAL ANIMAL FIGHTING LAW IS UNQUESTIONABLY CONSTITUTIONAL

There is no question that Congress has the power to ban the interstate transport 

of fighting birds. Indeed, the 2002 amendments making interstate transport a misdemeanor have already been upheld in the federal courts. 

Shortly after the 2002 amendments, the United Gamefowl Breeders Association 

(UGBA) and other cockfighting interests challenged the measure in Federal District 

Court in Lafayette, La., claiming among other things that the measure exceeded 

Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause. The court rejected every claim 

raised. 

In an extensive opinion, Judge Rebecca F. Doherty—who was nominated to the 

federal bench by George H.W. Bush—concluded that the ban was a legitimate exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because Congress was 

aware when it enacted the ban that ‘‘a substantial amount of money was expended 

annually as a result of the flow across state lines of gamefowl for the purpose of 

cockfighting ventures.’’ UGBA v. Veneman, No. 03–970 (W.D. La. May 31, 2005). 

Judge Doherty unequivocally rejected the argument that Congress lacks the power 

to restrict immoral uses of the channels of interstate commerce, explaining that ‘‘it 

is no argument against congressional authority to declare that Congress is acting 

on ‘moral’ grounds against those committing acts which an overwhelming majority 

of states have declared to be criminal.’’

COCKFIGHTING INTERESTS ELECTED NOT TO FILE AN APPEAL. 

A few days later, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reached the same decision, rejecting a nearly identical suit claiming that the 

nationwide ban violates the Commerce Clause, is unconstitutionally vague, and effectuated a ‘‘taking’’ of private property in violation of the 5th Amendment. Slavin 

v. USA, 403 F.3d 522 (2005). Here again, there was no appeal. 

In the face of multiple federal court decisions declaring that the current misdemeanor provisions banning interstate transport are consistent with the Commerce 

Clause, the Due Process Clause, and Supreme Court ‘‘takings’’ jurisprudence, there 

really are no plausible legal arguments against enacting felony penalties for these 

prohibitions. 

But the cockfighters have nonetheless been creative in trying to evade the law in 

the field, and have hatched some novel if implausible legal theories. Some 

cockfighters apparently thought they could get around state and federal law and 

continue their enterprise as long as they staged their fights on Indian land. Such 

schemes are prohibited under current federal law, and will continue to be prohibited 

under the legislation before us today. Just more than a week ago, a federal jury convicted four men—three from Oklahoma and one from Texas—for being spectators 

at a cockfight held in Indian country, and close to 70 others entered guilty pleas. 

As the U.S. Attorney said, ‘‘gamefowl enthusiasts should know that tribal lands 

offer no ‘safe haven’ for animal fighting.’’

BACKGROUND ON ANIMAL FIGHTING PRACTICES AND STATE LAWS

There exists a virtual national consensus that animal fighting should be a crime. 

Massachusetts was the first state to ban animal fighting in 1836, and a majority 

of states banned the activity during the 19th century, indicating that this activity 

offended basic American sensibilities relating to cruelty to animals more than a century ago. 

All 50 states now ban dogfighting, and cockfighting is prohibited in 48 states. Voters have approved ballot initiatives in Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma in the last 

decade to outlaw cockfighting in those states and to make it a felony in each of 

them. Cockfighting is legal only in parts of Louisiana and New Mexico, and reputable public attitude surveys reveal that more than 80 percent of citizens in each 

of those two states want to see cockfighting outlawed and made a felony; dogfighting 

is already a felony in both states. We expect to see both states ban cockfighting in 

2007. In recent years, the practice of hog-dog fighting has come to light, principally 

in the South. Once learning of the phenomenon, state lawmakers have reacted swiftly. Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, Mississippi, and South Carolina have 

passed legislation specifically banning hog-dog fights within the last two years. 

50

Animal fighting raids have gone up dramatically in recent years. There are busts 

each week, and these busts reveal two things: first, animal fighting is very widespread and is conducted through the United States, and second, law enforcement, 

including federal authorities, are taking the matter more seriously than ever. Passing H.R. 137 will give federal and state authorities more tools to crack down on 

interstate and foreign movement of fighting animals. 

There are three nationally circulated, above-ground cockfighting magazines—Grit 

& Steel, The Feathered Warrior, and The Gamecock—that collectively have nearly 

20,000 subscribers, and there are numerous web sites such as Pitfowl.com and 

Gamerooster.com. There are at least 10 underground dogfighting magazines. Strong 

state and federal laws, along with adequate enforcement, are needed to crack down 

on illegal operators and deter individuals from participating in this conduct. 

All animal fighting spectacles operate on the same principles. Animals are typically bred for fighting purposes, and trained for fighting. They are placed in a pit—

often after they are provided with stimulants to make them more aggressive or 

blood-clotting drugs—with another animal and then goaded to fight. 

Dogfights may last several hours, and it is not unusual for one or both dogs to 

die from blood loss or shock, as a result of hundreds of bite wounds. Cockfighting 

roosters have knives or gaffs attached to their legs, and the birds kick one another, 

with the strapped weapons piercing lungs, gouging eyes, and inflicting other grievous wounds. In hog-dog fights, boars’ tusks are cut off and they are placed in a pen. 

One or more pit bulls are then released, and the dogs attack the hog, resulting 

sometimes in the ears of the boar being torn off or their jowls being ripped open. 

Most of the injuries are sustained by the hogs, not the dogs. 

The people who instigate and watch animal fights enjoy the spectacle, just as people in ancient Rome watched staged fights between gladiators or animals. 

Dogfighters profit by setting higher stud fees for winning dogs. The puppies of 

champion fighters are sold for $1,000 a dog or more. A successful cockfighter can 

sell a breeding trio, a cock and two hens, for several thousand dollars. The cost of 

raising that rooster and two hens is minimal, but the profits are substantial. Fighting animals are sold to people across state lines, with the cockfighting magazines 

providing hundreds of ads for ‘‘breeding trios.’’ With the misdemeanor penalties in 

existing law offset by such large profits, the fighters do not even think twice before 

shipping these animals all over the country. The other prime motivation is illegal 

wagering, as spectators gamble on the combatants. No state or local jurisdiction allows this form of gambling as a regulated, legal enterprise. 

ANIMAL FIGHTING ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER CRIMINAL CONDUCT

Dogfighting and cockfighting are often associated with other criminal conduct, 

such as drug traffic, illegal firearms use, gang violence, and murder. Some 

dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs; trained fighting dogs 

also pose a serious threat to our communities. We have a pit bull epidemic in many 

cities throughout the nation, and dogfighting has played no small part in contributing to this problem and in introducing thousands of vicious and powerful dogs into 

our communities—threatening other animals, children, and even adults. 

In January, The Humane Society of the United States worked with the 

Mecklenberg County Sheriff’s Office in southern Virginia and an array of state and 

federal law enforcement authorities on a raid of a major pit near the North Carolina 

border. There were 145 arrests, and three-fourths of those charged came from North 

Carolina, where the state had adopted a strong felony law in December 2005. Because Virginia has one of the weakest anti-cockfighting laws in the country, the 

practice has surged in the state, and the weak penalties in the federal law have not 

been a sufficient deterrent. At this cockfight, there was $40,000 in cash confiscated, 

and law enforcement authorities identified 7 members of MS 13 and the Mexican 

mafia. 

Just last week, HSUS investigators just infiltrated a pit in Kentucky, near the 

Tennessee border. Our investigators reported 500 people in attendance, with the pit 

having theater-style seating, concession stands, and a $20 entry fee. License plates 

from throughout the South were evident in the parking area, with many people coming from Tennessee, where federal authorities in 2005 shut down two of the largest 

pits in the country. The cockfighters are an adaptable group and pivoted to participate in cockfights just over the state line. Investigators observed approximately half 

a million dollars change hands on just a single day, 

A particularly disturbing aspect of cockfighting is the common presence of young 

children at these spectacles. Children as young as six years old have been observed 

making wagers and acting as runners for bettors at cockfighting clubs. During a 

raid in Sutter County, Cal. two young children were abandoned at the side of the 

51

arena by the adults who had brought them to the cockfights. In another California 

case, a mother of a six-year-old boy was assaulted by her husband when she refused 

to allow him to take their son to a cockfight. He was subsequently arrested for 

spousal abuse and possession of gamecocks for fighting purposes and illegal paraphernalia. 

In 2005, as I mentioned above, agents from the FBI and other federal and state 

law enforcement agencies shut down two of the nation’s largest cockfighting pits, 

the Del Rio Cockfighting Pit and the 440 Cockfighting Pit in Cocke County, Tennessee. These raids were part of a larger anti-corruption investigation by the FBI 

that has uncovered chop shops, prostitution, narcotics traffic, illegal gambling, and 

cockfighting in east Tennessee. Several top law enforcement officers with the Cocke 

County Sheriff’s office were arrested, charged and convicted of a range of criminal 

activity; they were directly involved in illegal conduct and operating a protection 

racket. 

In two complaints filed on June 17, 2005 in U.S. District Court in the Eastern 

District of Tennessee, the United States attorney reported the following facts. This 

information shows the scope of cockfighting activity, the attendance of hundreds of 

people at a single cockfighting derby, the extraordinary sums wagered at cockfights, 

the interstate nature of the activity, and the involvement of children at the events.

‘‘On March 15, 2003, a cooperating witness reported observing approximately 

182 cock fights at the Del Rio cockfight pit. On average, between $2,000 and 

$20,000 was gambled by the spectators on each fight.’’ (p. 6)‘‘The cooperating 

witness observed a girl approximately 10 years old with a stack of $100 bills 

gambling on several different cock fights. Vehicles were observed in the parking 

lot bearing license plates from North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, and Virginia.’’ (pp. 6–7)

‘‘On April 26, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the cockfights at the Del Rio 

pit and observed more than 100 cockfights with the displayed total prize money 

of $20,900 posted inside the fights. The witness observed persons betting on the 

cockfights, to include fifteen to twenty children of approximate ages seven to fifteen betting on several cockfights.’’ (p. 7)

‘‘On May 17, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the Del Rio cockfights and 

observed that a full capacity crowd of approximately 600 to 700 people were 

present at the fights.’’ (p. 7)

‘‘On May 24, 2003, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, acting undercover, attended the Del Rio cockfights. . . . The agent observed approximately 200 to 300 people in attendance and the fights on this day feature 

two teams per person with six roosters per team. The entry fee for the roosters 

appears to be $100 per rooster. . . . With approximately 100 teams participating, the operators of the Del Rio cockfight pit would have taken in that day 

approximately $60,000 in entry fees and between $4,000 and $6,000 in spectator 

admissions.’’ (p. 8)

‘‘On Saturday, March 8, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the cockfights at 

the 440 pit and observed between 300 and 400 people at the fights. The witness 

also observed several vehicles present at the fights bearing out of state license 

plates, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina. . . . The witness observed approximately 100 different cockfights . . . several thousand dollars were bet on each fight by different persons observing the fights. During one fight, the witness observed one 

individual lose $10,000 on the fight. The witness observed approximately 

$20,000 to $30,000 in bets exchange hands on each fight. . . . The witness also 

observed five or six children under the age of twelve inside the fights.’’ (p. 6–

7)

‘‘On April 19, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the cockfights at the 440 

pit. The witness observed between 80 and 90 fights and estimated the crowd 

at the fights to be between 200 and 300 people. . . . The witness also observed 

twelve to fifteen children, of approximate ages six to fourteen years, betting on 

individual chicken fights. Each of these children was wearing an entrance fee 

ticket attached to their clothing. (p. 8)

‘‘On April 26, a cooperating witness attended the cockfights at the 440 pit. . . . 

While at the fights, the witness observed approximately 60 fights and estimated 

the crowd at the fights to be more than 300 persons. Additionally, the witness 

observed several children who were involved in cockfights and betting on particular fights.’’ (p. 8–9)

52

‘‘On Saturday, May 3, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the cockfights at 

the 440 pit, and observed 48 different cockfights. . . . The witness observed between twelve and fourteen children, approximate ages six to thirteen, inside the 

establishment, with most of the children gambling on different cockfights 

throughout the night.’’ (p. 9–10)

‘‘On June 7, 2003, a cooperating witness attended the cockfights at the 440 pit. 

Approximately 150 people were present and there were approximately 39 separate fights. The witness observed eight to ten children present at the 

cockfights.’’ (p. 10)

This litany of facts about cockfighting shows it is no benign activity. It is organized crime, where children are thrust into these dens of criminality with substantial money being wagered illegally. State and local law enforcement officials have 

been corrupted, and have themselves turned into criminals. The federal government 

has, within the last year, also been involved in a series of arrests of local law enforcement in Hawaii involving protection rackets for illegal cockfights, demonstrating that the circumstances in Tennessee are not isolated cases. And in South 

Carolina, state Agriculture Secretary Charles Sharpe was convicted of accepting 

$10,000 from organizers of a cockfighting pit in exchange for helping the group 

avoid legal trouble. Sharpe was removed from office and drew a two-year prison sentence for extortion and lying to a federal officer. 

THE FEDERAL LAW AGAINST ANIMAL FIGHTING NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED,

AND IT IS BEST PLACED IN TITLE 18

During consideration of the 2002 Farm bill, both the House and Senate unanimously approved felony-level penalties for illegal animal fighting ventures. The policy reform under consideration today—an upgrade in penalties for illegal animal 

fighting activities—has already met with favor by both the House and Senate. 

Misdemeanor penalties don’t provide a meaningful deterrent to animal fighters, 

especially when thousands of dollars are wagered on a single dog or cock fight. Relatively small fines, and brief jail sentences, are considered a cost of doing business. 

To be meaningful, the penalties must offset the gain that comes from participating 

in these crimes. For instance, most of the Virginia cockfighters arrested earlier this 

month pled out at $500 per man, and that simply is not a sufficient deterrent for 

people wagering thousands of dollars at a single cockfight. 

What’s more, animal fighters know that federal officials will rarely pursue cases 

because of the misdemeanor penalties in the statute. U.S. Attorneys have told us 

they are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases if at the end of the process they 

can seek only a misdemeanor penalty. The only reason that the U.S. Attorney filed 

charges in the Tennessee cases was the massive corruption and other criminal activity associated with cockfighting in Cocke County. 

Because of the varying penalties throughout the nation, we are seeing the states 

with the weakest penalties becoming magnets for cockfighting. In December 2005, 

North Carolina became the 32nd state to punish cockfighting as a felony. In February of 2006, two cockfights were raided in South Carolina— a misdemeanor 

state— and 55 people were arrested. A majority of them were cockfighters who lived 

in North Carolina but had traveled across state lines to escape felony penalties and 

fight in a state where the maximum punishment they would likely face was a $100 

fine. If H.R. 137 had been law in February 2006, many of those cockfighters would 

have had to think twice before shopping around for the nearest state where they 

could go to commit their crime without fear of any serious punishment. 

When the Congress enacted the federal animal fighting law in 1976, no states 

made animal fighting a felony. Today, dogfighting is a felony in 48 states, and cockfighting is a felony in 33 states. State laws commonly authorize jail time of 3 to 

5 years or more for animal fighting. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement 

Act brings federal law in line with state laws and other federal laws related to animal cruelty. 

Congress in 1999 authorized penalties providing up to five years in jail for interstate commerce in videos depicting animal cruelty (P.L. 106–152), and mandatory 

jail time of up to 10 years for willfully harming or killing a federal police dog or 

horse (P.L. 106–254). Since the Congress passed a law making it a felony to sell 

videos showing dogfighting and cockfighting, it stands to reason that the core activity—animal fighting itself—should warrant felony-level penalties also. H.R. 137 provides up to three years in jail for people who transport animals for fighting purposes 

in interstate or foreign commerce—still lower than other related federal and state 

law penalties, but at least felony level. 

53

H.R. 137 also expands federal animal fighting law to include interstate and foreign commerce in sharp implements designed exclusively for cockfights. Razor-sharp 

knives known as ‘‘slashers’’ and ice pick-like gaffs are attached to the legs of birds 

to make cockfights more violent. These weapons, used only in cockfights, are sold 

through cockfighting magazines and the Internet. To effectively deter the movement 

of animals for fighting, Congress should also prohibit transport of the fighting implements that make the sport possible and have no other purpose. 

Dogfighting and gang activity are now intertwined throughout the nation. Highend drug dealers are buying the most prominent fighting dogs and matching them 

for large sums of money. In one dogfight near Houston, Tex. last summer, $100,000 

was on the line. The winner of the fight, Thomas Weigner, was later ambushed at 

his home and murdered by four armed men. Authorities believe these men follow 

the dogfighting circuit, and knew Weigner had a large sum of cash in his home. 

Given the widespread criminal conduct associated with organized illegal animal 

fighting activities, it is appropriate that the crime be placed in Title 18. The FBI 

is often involved in interdicting narcotics traffic, and has made a priority of rooting 

out public corruption. While this bill will not take any authority away from USDA 

and its Office of Inspector General—whose personnel have been very much engaged 

on the issue of animal fighting in recent years and who will continue to play a major 

role in cracking down on illegal animal fighting ventures—the bill will augment that 

work by allowing other federal departments to become more engaged on animal 

fighting enforcement. 

GAMBLING WITH OUR LIVES: COCKFIGHTING AND THE SPREAD OF AVIAN DISEASES

The initial explosion of the Asian avian influenza strain H5N1 in early 2004, leading to the deaths of over 100 million chickens across eight countries in Southeast 

Asia, was traced back to the trade in live birds for commerce. The timing and pattern were not consistent with known migratory bird routes. The initial spread of 

this disease seems to have been via the highways, not the flyways. 

The riskiest segment of trade may be in fighting cocks, who are transported long 

distances both within and across countries’ borders to be unwilling participants in 

the high-stakes gambling blood sport. In cockfights, the fighting implements guarantee bloodletting. Surviving birds may be sprayed with blood and infected, and 

even the handlers may be sprayed with blood and infected by the virus. A number 

of cockfighting enthusiasts, and children of cockfighters, have died. 

The Thai Department of Disease Control, for example, described a case of a young 

man who died from bird flu and who had ‘‘very close contact to . . . fighting cocks 

by carrying and helping to clear up the mucous secretion from the throat of the cock 

during the fighting game by using his mouth.’’ As one leading epidemiologist at the 

Centers for Disease Control commented dryly, ‘‘That was a risk factor for avian flu 

we hadn’t really considered before.’’

The movement of gaming cocks is implicated in the rapid spread of H5N1. Malaysian government officials, for example, blame cockfighters as the main ‘‘culprits’’ for 

bringing the disease into their country by taking birds to cockfighting competitions 

in Thailand and bringing them back infected. Thailand, a country with an estimated 

15 million fighting cocks, was eventually forced to pass a nationwide interim ban 

on cockfighting. The Director of Animal Movement Control and Quarantine within 

the Thai Department of Livestock Development explained what led them to the ban: 

‘‘When one province that banned cockfights didn’t have a second wave outbreak of 

bird flu and an adjacent province did, it reinforced the belief that the cocks spread 

disease.’’ A study of Thailand published in 2006 concluded, ‘‘We found significant associations at the national level between HPAI [H5N1] and the overall number of 

cocks used in cock fights.’’

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, cockfighting may also have played a role in making the disease so difficult to control. 

During mass culls in Thailand, for instance, bird owners received about 50 baht, 

about $1.25, in compensation for each chicken killed—less than the bird’s market 

value even for meat. Some prized fighting cocks fetch up to $1,000. So it is no wonder that owners may be reluctant to report sick birds 

Fighting cocks were reportedly hidden from authorities and illegally smuggled 

across provincial lines and country borders, not only complicating the eradication of 

H5N1, but potentially facilitating its spread, causing some officials to throw up their 

hands. ‘‘Controlling the epidemic in the capital is now beyond the ministry’s competence,’’ Thailand’s Deputy Agriculture Minister told the Bangkok Post, ‘‘due to 

strong opposition from owners of fighting cocks, who keep hiding their birds away 

from livestock officials.’’

54

A different poultry virus—exotic Newcastle disease (END)—struck California in 

2002 and inflicted major economic damage, thanks in part to cockfighting. This outbreak, which spread to Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas, caused the destruction of nearly 4 million chickens at a cost to federal taxpayers of around $200 

million and led to a multinational boycott of U.S. poultry products. 

While it is only a theory that gamefowl brought the disease to this country then, 

it is a known fact that once END arrived, movement of gamefowl distributed the 

disease all over the region. It could have been isolated but for the vast network of 

backyard cockfighting operations. The high mobility of the gamecocks, related to 

meetings, training, breeding, and fighting activities, played a major role in the 

spread of the disease once it became established in California. Although agriculture 

inspectors could not pinpoint the exact route by which the disease jumped to Las 

Vegas and into Arizona, law enforcement had an idea. ‘‘We’ll raid a fight in Merced 

County and find people from Nevada, New Mexico, Mexico, Arizona, and Southern 

California,’’ said a detective with the Merced County California Sheriff’s office. 

‘‘They bring birds to fight and take the survivors home.’’ Cockfighting also played 

a role in the previous exotic Newcastle disease outbreak in California which led to 

the deaths of 12 million chickens. 

During the course of containment following the 2002 outbreak, agriculture officials were staggered by the number of illegal cockfighting operations—up to 50,000 

gamecock operations in southern California alone, according to some estimates. Despite being illegal in the state for more than 100 years, and despite hundreds of 

arrests, state law enforcement officials say cockfighting thrives—all of this in a state 

with a misdemeanor penalty. 

Former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman endorsed legislation to establish 

felony level penalties for violations of the federal animal fighting law in a May 2004 

letter, in which she said that the bill would ‘‘enhance USDA’s ability to safeguard 

the health of U.S. poultry against deadly diseases, such as exotic Newcastle disease 

and avian influenza.’’ She indicated that cockfighting has ‘‘been implicated in the 

introduction and spread of exotic Newcastle disease in California in 2002–2003, 

which cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate, and cost the U.S. poultry 

industry many millions more in lost export markets. . . . We believe that tougher 

penalties and prosecution will help to deter illegal movement of birds as well as the 

inhumane practice of cockfighting itself.’’

According to the cockfighters’ trade association, the UGBA, there are thousands 

of operations that raise fighting cocks across the country. In states where raising 

birds for blood sports is illegal, breeders claim the cocks are being raised as pets 

or for show. A major 2004 report released by the USDA on biosecurity among backyard flocks across the country found that only about half of the gamefowl operations—operations that tend to raise cockfighting birds—were following even the 

most basic biosecurity fundamentals, such as paying proper attention to potentially 

contaminated footwear. 

With American roosters participating in competitions in Asia, like the 2006 World 

Slasher Cup, it’s clear that fighting birds are being shipped illegally around the 

world. All it takes is one contraband avian Typhoid Mary smuggled from Asia into 

some clandestine domestic cockfight to spread bird flu throughout the United States. 

Strengthening penalties and improving enforcement on interstate transport of fighting cocks in America, as well as putting the final two nails in the cockfighting coffin 

by banning the practice in Louisiana and New Mexico, may help protect the health 

of America’s flocks and America’s people. 

The National Chicken Council (NCC), the trade association for the U.S. commercial poultry industry, agrees. The NCC damns cockfighting not only as ‘‘inhumane,’’ 

but as posing a serious and constant threat of disease transmission to the commercial industry, and it has endorsed this legislation. 

In August 2005, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture Food and Drug 

Safety Administrator told a gathering of federal and state officials that current U.S. 

Postal Service regulations ‘‘are inadequate and present great potential for contamination of the poultry industry.’’ He estimates that each day, thousands of fighting 

cocks and other fowl lacking health certificates enter North Carolina, potentially 

placing the state’s massive poultry industry at risk. ‘‘Chickens find transport a fearful, stressful, injurious and even fatal procedure,’’ one group of researchers concluded, and it’s well-documented that this high level of stress can make birds more 

susceptible to catching, carrying, and spreading disease. The legal and illegal international trade in fighting cocks makes the blood sport no safe bet. 

Last year, law enforcement officials in San Diego County arrested individuals attempting to bring cockfighting birds into California. Birds coming into the country 

from Mexico, Asia, or other countries or continents pose a grave threat of spreading 

dangerous avian diseases to the United States, jeopardizing the health of poultry 

55

flocks and human populations. The idea of regulating this trade—now that 33 states 

have felony level penalties for this conduct—is unrealistic and fanciful. The American public will not tolerate decriminalization of cockfighting, and the best response 

now is the adoption of 50 state felony laws and a federal felony law that provide 

a sufficient deterrent to individuals who want to engage in this frivolous sport. 

Opponents of this legislation argue that felony penalties would drive cockfighters 

underground and make it more difficult to get their cooperation during disease outbreaks. But in Asian countries where cockfighting is perfectly legal, authorities have 

had great difficulty getting the cooperation of cockfighters and bird flu has spread 

in part because of their determination to hide their birds. Here in the U.S., 

cockfighters have revealed their intentions to conceal their birds in the event that 

bird flu emerges here. Cockfighting magazines have instructed their readers to hide 

their ‘‘best birds’’ on an alternate property site and purchase months’ worth of feed 

in advance so that, if a bird flu outbreak occurs, they won’t draw attention to themselves by going to the feed store. This is an industry that already operates underground in the U.S.; it can hardly go further underground. It is time to eliminate 

the industry and all of the problems it fosters. 

COCKFIGHTING IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY

Since 1999, the UGBA and other cockfighting groups have spent hundreds of 

thousands of dollars to bottle up this legislation. The UGBA is a criminal syndicate, 

financing its federal lobbying activities at least in part from fees collected at illegal 

cockfights throughout the country. Staff from The Humane Society of the United 

States assisted the FBI in its investigation into public corruption in east Tennessee, 

and accompanied federal agents when they raided the Del Rio Cockfighting Pit. Our 

staff witnessed a letter from the UGBA on display at the pit thanking the Del Rio 

pit for a donation of several thousand dollars to the registered lobbyist of the UGBA. 

This criminal syndicate is paying lobbyists in Washington, D.C. to thwart passage 

of H.R. 137, and that should be unacceptable to this committee. 

In fact, the Del Rio Cockfighting Pit was owned by a former president of the 

UGBA named Don Poteat. The day it was raided the owner’s wife, Donna Poteat, 

was the acting Secretary of the UGBA. This is nothing new for the UGBA leadership. A prior president of the UGBA, Red Johnson, was arrested when his illegal 

cockfighting pit was raided some years ago in Vinton County, Ohio. The man testifying today for the opponents of H.R. 137, Jerry Leber, is a self-identified 

cockfighter. 

It is a distortion for cockfighting apologists to suggest that gamefowl breeders—

whether the UGBA or state associations—engage in legitimate agricultural activities. The USDA and others involved in agriculture do not consider the rearing of 

birds for fighting to be a legitimate agriculture enterprise and do not account for 

the sale of cockfighting birds as part of the agricultural economy, just as we do not 

consider the rearing of dogs for fighting or the growing of marijuana or cocaine to 

be legitimate agriculture operations. Farmers grow or raise food or fiber for legitimate social purposes, such as feeding or clothing people. It is unacceptable to raise 

animals simply so that they can fight to the death. It is unfortunate that 

cockfighters try to trade on the good reputation of farmers by attempting to associate themselves with normal agricultural practices and production methods. 

Animal fighting is a bloody and indefensible practice. It is closely associated with 

other criminal activity. Dogfighting poses a threat to the well-being of children with 

the rearing of powerful and aggressive dogs. Cockfighters, given their worldwide industry, may play a central role in spreading avian influenza to this country. The 

leading legislative body in the world should shut the door as tightly as it can on 

these practices by immediately enacting the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Leber? 

TESTIMONY OF JERRY LEBER, PRESIDENT, UNITED 

GAMEFOWL BREEDERS ASSOCIATION, ALBANY, OH 

Mr. LEBER. Chairman Scott and Members of the Committee, I 

would summarize my full written statement and request that the 

full statement and its attachments be part of the full record. 

56

My name is Jerry Leber. I am president of the United Gamefowl 

Breeders Association. I saw my first game rooster at 9 years old, 

been an admirer of gamefowl ever since. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the United 

Gamefowl Breeders Association and the gamefowl industry on H.R. 

137. 

H.R. 137 is a piece of legislation that would essentially make felons out of normal, hard-working, taxpaying Americans. Should this 

legislation be passed, the U.S. Government is equating the interstate and foreign transportation of gamefowl with murder, rape, 

child pornography and other heinous crimes. 

There seems to be far more serious and far more important 

issues facing our country, such as terrorists, poverty, illegal immigration, missing children and the like. 

This legislation is adamantly supported by domestic terrorist 

groups, animal rights groups, the HSUS and those who support extreme animal rights groups. 

The FBI sees the number one domestic threat as the animal 

rights movement. According to John Lewis, FBI deputy assistant 

director of counterterrorism, ‘‘The animal rights groups pose the 

most serious domestic terror threat in our country.’’

Five of the top 11 people from the FBI domestic terrorist wanted 

list have ties to animal rights groups. These are not people who 

raise gamefowl. These are not people we represent. 

Over 12,000 attacks by animal rights groups in the last 15 years 

has resulted in the loss of millions and maybe billions of dollars to 

our economy. 

John Boss, a physician, well-known activist in the animal rights 

movement, has openly condoned the assassination of people who do 

testing on live animals. He says that a few examples of assassinations will greatly change the views of those in the animal industry. 

The Humane Society of the United States and other animal 

rights groups kill an estimated 4 million to 5 million dogs, cats, kittens and little wet-nosed puppies every year under the name of 

being humane. 

The HSUS has senior managers who are reported to be convicted 

criminals as a result of animal rights activities. And these are the 

groups that support this legislation and advocate its passage. 

When I read Genesis 1:26, that man shall have dominion over all 

the animals and that animals were put on earth for man’s use, I 

must have missed the part about according to the agenda of the 

HSUS. 

H.R. 137 on the surface seems to be supported by law enforcement agencies across the country, but individually they see it is a 

total waste of their time, energy and taxpayers’ dollars. 

In my 8 years of working with law enforcement personnel and 

countless conversations, never once was this type of legislation ever 

mentioned as being wanted or needed. 

If illegal gambling, drug trafficking, terrorist cells and spreading 

of threatening disease exists as professed by the HSUS, bring the 

industry out in the open. License, regulate, inspect, test, tax, oversee. Don’t enact legislation that may create more severe or greater 

problems. Enact legislation to resolve these problems. 

57

In a letter dated 1/23/07 from Ron Sparks, Alabama commissioner of agriculture, he states, ‘‘Their’’—the gamefowl breeders—

‘‘continued cooperation is imperative for a successful disease surveillance and prevention program. And their business has a powerful impact on Alabama’s economy.’’

The last outbreak in the Southwest, 2002–2003, of Exotic Newcastle disease, a gamefowl breeder was the first to report that outbreak, and had it not been, according to Dr. Francine Bradley at 

the University of California-Davis, had the gamefowl breeder not 

reported the outbreak, it may have been five times or 10 times 

greater than it actually was. 

It was the gamefowl breeder who brought this to the attention 

of Government officials, not the poultry person or the backyard 

flock who first had it and did not report or failed to report it. 

The passing of H.R. 137 would have a devastating impact on our 

country’s economy. Research shows that the gamefowl industry 

generates $2 billion to $6 billion a year for the economy. 

With more and more jobs being sent out of our country, how can 

we rationally and logically justify eliminating an industry that annually contributes billions of dollars to our economy? 

The WashingtonWatch.com Web site shows 88 percent of the people opposed to H.R. 137. These are unsolicited responses from your 

constituents, citizens from every part of the country that expect 

and demand Government to meet their needs. 

Is H.R. 137 for the hard-working, taxpaying, honest American 

men and women who have and will readily fight for this country 

for their lives and the freedom this country stands for? I think not. 

This legislation is supported by special interests, animal rights 

groups with some ties to domestic terrorism. To paraphrase the 

IFCNR report from 2002, ‘‘An attempt through the legislative process to outlaw gamefowl activities is no different in motivation or effect than legislation that legalizes discrimination, racism and the 

violation of human rights. No matter the intent, no matter the 

basis, there is no justification. This legislation is built on distorted, 

deliberate, baseless and untrue attempts to portray a portion of 

America’s diverse culture as deviant and deserving of legal banishment. Nothing could be further from the truth or more dangerous 

to our society.’’

The gamefowl industry, the United Gamefowl Breeders Association, and the millions of Americans who believe we live in the 

greatest country on earth respectfully, honestly and sincerely request that you not give in to animal rights extremists, that you not 

take way another freedom, that you vote to support the overwhelming majority of our citizens for the aforementioned reasons 

and oppose H.R. 137. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for the opportunity to share this information. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leber follows:]

58

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY LEBER


JL0001.eps
59


JL0002.eps
60


JL0003.eps
61


JL0004.eps
62


JL0005.eps
63


JL0006.eps
64


JL0007.eps
65


JL0008.eps
66


JL0009.eps
67


JL0010.eps
68

ATTACHMENT


JL0011.eps
69


JL0012.eps
70


JL0013.eps
71


JL0014.eps
72


JL0015.eps
73


JL0016.eps
74


JL0017.eps
75


JL0018.eps
76


JL0019.eps
77


JL0020.eps
78


JL0021.eps
79


JL0022.eps
80


JL0023.eps
81


JL0024.eps
82


JL0025.eps
83


JL0026.eps
84


JL0027.eps
85


JL0028.eps
86

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Leber. 

We will now have questions, and I will defer and yield to the 

gentleman from Chesapeake, the Ranking Member, Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Shelly, thank you for being here and for your testimony. And I wonder if you could tell us if the funding problems 

that you have experienced in the Navajo Nation are representative, 

in your opinion, of what we see in Native American communities 

in general across the country. 

Mr. SHELLY. Congressman, the question that you ask—direct 

funding would be a really good thing to the Navajo Nation, because 

we can use that fund right away and directly provide the service 

that the funding is used for. And I would say that would be the 

best way. 

Mr. FORBES. And how would you use some of that funding for 

health care, for example? What would your plans be for that? 

Mr. SHELLY. For the health care part of it, we would probably do 

a lot of education and try to work with the health care facility to 

implement some of those preventions of the drug that we are talking about, and the fund would be used in that area. 

I do have the director of the health division here that can help 

with some of the technical question that is coming up. If it is necessary, I will go to that. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

Mr. Sabin, can you tell us, on the spoofing, what is the technology that they use to do this? How do they acquire that technology? Do they have to buy it? Do they create it? Do we need to 

do anything to regulate the technology that they are being able to 

get access to for——

Mr. SABIN. The increased prevalence and the increased and rapid 

technological developments in our society have allowed it to be 

something that can be done by an individual in a home with readily purchased materials. Voice-over-Internet-protocols allow it to be 

much more prevalent and widespread. 

So I don’t profess to understand all the nuances of the technology, but the concern that law enforcement officials from the investigatory authorities—are saying that doesn’t need to be the 

grand corporation. It could be done on the Internet. It can be done 

by an individual. It could done by a group. 

And so by that rapid development of technology for purposes that 

can facilitate other crimes through obtaining of financial information, Social Security data and the like, it really is something that 

we appreciate Congress’ sort proactive ability to be ahead of what 

could be much more harmful developments down the road. 

Mr. FORBES. And there is nothing, as I understand, that an individual can really do to stop the spoofing from his own number, is 

that——

Mr. SABIN. That is correct. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Pacelle, I was interested in your comments on the 

transport of fowl and the avian flu situation. And have you all done 

any analysis on the potential economic devastation that could come 

from the avian flu and that——

87

Mr. PACELLE. Well, many credible authorities, with many more 

experts than we have, have said, of course, that a single bird infects our poultry flocks and then gets into communities across the 

country, I mean, it is cataclysmic. 

With the Exotic Newcastle disease which is an outbreak that is 

confined to birds that are essentially a dead-end host, it was $200 

million that the Federal Government reimbursed poultry producers 

for in that State. 

So beyond that, I mean, the effect on the industry was much 

larger. The National Chicken Council, which is the major poultry 

producing groups, endorsed this legislation last Congress. 

Mr. FORBES. And, Mr. Leber, it was a little bit of a stretch for 

me to make the connection between testing animals, racism and, 

you know, the legislation that is up here. 

But given Mr. Pacelle’s testimony on the spread of avian diseases, do you think that reducing the risk of disease would actually 

work to save the gamefowl industry money as opposed to costing 

it money based on the economic costs that you were looking at? 

Mr. LEBER. My understanding in talking with departments of agriculture throughout the country and/or those involved in the national poultry improvement plan state that the gamefowl industry 

and gamefowl are by far the healthiest birds in our country. And 

when they personally go to inspect, check for, diseases they find 

them by far the healthiest birds in our country. 

When they are traveled, they are always traveled in enclosed 

containers inside, back of whatever vehicle. They are not taken 

down the road in open-air containers with feathers, feces, saliva 

and other things being spread throughout the environment, like 

the poultry industry does as a whole. 

So they feel, by far, we are the safest poultry producers in the 

country, the gamefowl breeders. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Pacelle’s testimony was that he had seen even 

gang activity involved in that. 

I wouldn’t think—Mr. Pacelle, do you have a response that you 

just want to——

Mr. PACELLE. Yes, thank you very much. 

I mean, let’s be clear. It was in 1976 that the Congress passed 

this Federal statute, section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, that 

criminalized most forms of interstate transport of animals for fighting purposes. 

And on the farm bill in 2002, that loophole in the law was closed 

to ban any interstate or foreign commerce in fighting birds. So I 

am not sure what Mr. Leber is speaking about in terms of them 

packing the animals carefully when they transport them. 

I mean, I guess he is conceding that the industry widely transports animals illegally under Federal law, which is what we see all 

the time. All you need to do is look at these cock fighting magazines. 

There are 3 monthly cock fighting magazines. This one is called 

the Gamecock. This is The Feathered Warrior. They have advertisements throughout the book on sale of cock fighting birds, the 

sale of the knives and the implements. And these are aboveground 

magazines—about 20,000 total subscribers to these magazines. 

Mr. FORBES. Gentlemen, thank you all for your testimony. 

88

My time is out, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. Pacelle, is the Humane Society on a terrorist list? 

Mr. PACELLE. No, sir, we are absolutely not. We have long opposed any illegal activities to advance——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, let me ask you something really directly. 

I mean, do you advocate human assassination? 

Mr. PACELLE. No. We are very outspoken about any illegal conduct done in the name of animal protection or for any other purpose. It undercuts the core values of the society, which are based 

on compassion and respect. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, Mr. Sabin, you are in charge of the criminal division in the Department of Justice. Has the FBI made a 

statement relative to these extremist animal rights groups being 

the most significant domestic threat? 

Mr. SABIN. Actually, I am conversant in that issue, in a prior life 

dealing with national security as head of the counterterrorism section, and I did testify, ironically, at that hearing with Mr. Lewis 

from the FBI. 

So while I am not here to talk about that today, I can answer 

your question——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Feel free, though. Go right ahead. 

Mr. SABIN.—to say that there was an individual at that hearing 

that had a lively and robust interaction with Senator Lautenberg 

relating to targeting individuals that were involved in harming of 

animals. 

So there was, under oath, on the record, an individual that made 

those statements. It was not in any way related to the group that 

Mr. Pacelle—if that is how it is——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. I think it is important to put that on. 

Mr. Leber, you are not suggesting that the Humane Society is a 

domestic terrorist organization. 

Mr. LEBER. Sir, I was referring to the congressional testimony of 

Mr. John E. Lewis, and this is on the Federal Bureau of Investigation Web page, who simply cites that animal domestic terrorism—

and he quotes specifically Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front and others—as the number-one terrorism threat in our 

country. And I just——

Mr. SABIN. That is an accurate statement, that Mr. Lewis said 

that both ALF and ELF are of serious concern to law enforcement, 

in terms of domestic. We are not talking about international terrorism——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. 

Mr. SABIN.—was of significant concern. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. They have upstaged Al Qaida and other organizations? 

Mr. SABIN. No, sir. I am not suggesting that. I am not suggesting 

that in any way. I am just saying that Mr. Lewis——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. I just kind of want to be really clear about 

it. I mean——

Mr. SABIN. Right. There are militia groups. There is the concern 

over Mr. McVeigh and the lone-wolf type of activity. 

89

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. 

Mr. SABIN. Again, I want to stay in lane here today. I am not 

trying to get into——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, welcome to, you know, the fast lane. 

Mr. SABIN. I am happy to chat about that topic. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. 

Mr. PACELLE. You know, I don’t believe anyone has ever been 

harmed by a self-proclaimed animal activist. That said, I am the 

first to condemn any sort of activity in that regard. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. 

Go ahead, Mr. Leber. 

Mr. LEBER. I believe the record will reflect that the HSUS funds 

the ALF Internet Web site and/or their use of the Internet. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Pacelle? 

Mr. PACELLE. That is completely a false allegation. We don’t even 

know what——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. Well, that is on the record. 

Mr. Leber, I mean, when you make those kind of statements, and 

you infer or implicate that there is a large conspiracy among people 

who care about animals as being, you know, a domestic threat to 

the nation, you start to lose me in terms of the credibility of your 

argument. 

I mean, I am capable of making a distinction between the 

gamefowl industry and cock fighting. You know, and you talk about 

losing jobs. I would like to outsource cock fighting to some other 

country. 

There seems to be, you know, two States left—is that accurate? 

There seems to be two States left. So 48 State governments have 

expressed their aversion to cock fighting. 

Mr. Pacelle? 

Mr. PACELLE. I mean, I don’t want this to become a back-andforth between me and Mr. Leber——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Feel free. Fight back. 

Mr. PACELLE.—but the United Gamefowl Breeders Association is 

a group of cock fighters. It is just a cock fighting group. It doesn’t 

exist——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is that true, Mr. Leber? 

Mr. LEBER. Sir, we have members that show in poultry associations. We have 4-H students——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you engage in cock fighting, Mr. Leber? 

Mr. LEBER. No, sir. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You do not. 

Mr. LEBER. No, sir. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You personally are not involved——

Mr. LEBER. No, sir. 

Mr. DELAHUNT.—in cock fighting, sponsoring cock fighting or associated in any way with cock fighting. 

Mr. LEBER. I do raise gamefowl, sir, and I sell them for breeding 

and show purposes, but I do not——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, whatever time I may have left I would like to 

yield to my friend from Oregon——

90

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman’s time has just about expired. But I 

would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon be 

allowed to participate if yielded time by another Member. 

Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. 

I have had a lot of fights with Mr. Pacelle in the HSUSA, and 

I will start out by stipulating that I do not consider your organization, sir, to be a terrorist organization in any way, shape or form. 

I think some of the things that you advocate are misguided, so we 

will get into that now. 

We all know that every U.S. Attorney’s Office and other prosecutor’s office operates under a budget. And the U.S. attorney or the 

district attorney has got to make a determination on where the 

budget can be most effectively used. 

By increasing the penalty for interstate shipment of animals for 

use in fighting from a misdemeanor to a felony—the Constitution 

requires an indictment by a grand jury in the case of a felony 

charge, and it also allows the defendant, if indigent, to get a public 

defender at taxpayers’ expense. 

Neither of those are required if someone is charged with a misdemeanor. Given that, why do you think there will be more effective enforcement if your bill is passed that increases the penalty to 

a felony, since it takes an awful lot more U.S. attorneys’ time to 

seek and obtain an indictment and the chance with a public defender that the defendant will have a jury trial goes way up? 

Mr. PACELLE. Well, thank you, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and 

I am sorry we do disagree on this issue and some others. It was 

regrettable for us to get into a polarized situation with you last 

Congress over this issue. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, you know, I would like to thank you 

for spending all that money in my district, just for the record. 

Mr. PACELLE. You are welcome. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I got more votes than any other congressman in the country who is elected by district. 

So, answer the question. 

Mr. PACELLE. Yes. Well, I will be happy to answer the question. 

And thank you for inviting us into your district there. 

We have talked to numerous U.S. attorneys, and they have said 

they are reluctant to pursue cases with a small penalty. These 

cases do involve some investigative work. It involves lots of individuals. They have said, you know, we want the option. 

You know, this is not mandating that U.S. attorneys take cases. 

They have the same discretion as they do with any other felonylevel penalty or any other crime. It is up to them, as the U.S. attorneys in charge of their area, to make judgments about how they 

allocate their resources. 

What I can say is that we—that is the case with every law enforcement officer at the State level, at the local level, and we have 

seen a trend in this country toward more felony-level penalties because more and more law enforcement officials recognize this is a 

serious crime. 

They recognize that cruelty is severe. They recognize that public 

corruption is a major problem. They recognize that narcotics traffic 

91

is a problem. All of the other social ills associated with organized 

animal fighting—this is a major underground industry. 

You have an organization here that is operating as an organized 

criminal association abetting these activities all over the country. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, animal fighting is illegal in 48 

States, and from what Mr. Scott has said, it is about to be illegal 

in 49 States. 

Wouldn’t the more effective law enforcement be to have those 

who are engaged in animal fighting be prosecuted by the State 

rather than diverting the efforts of either the FBI or the U.S. Department of Agriculture into putting together cases with felony 

raps? 

Mr. PACELLE. Mr. Sensenbrenner, we work with State law enforcement officials, local and State. We train those law enforcement 

officials on investigating animal fighting crimes. And what we have 

seen is the nature of these crimes is interstate, international. 

You know, the State of Virginia cannot possibly look at a national network of dog fighting operators and really make an effective case. 

But you can have a U.S. attorney, in cooperation with other U.S. 

attorneys, crack down on a seven- or eight-State network of organized animal fighters who are trafficking in narcotics, bring children to these fights, $1.8 million in gambling receipts. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Isn’t trafficking in narcotics a Federal felony even if you don’t cross a State line? 

Mr. PACELLE. Yes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Don’t prosecutors have enough tools 

to get at people who are trafficking in narcotics? You know, isn’t 

animal health something that the USDA vigorously investigates? 

And shouldn’t they be investigating avian flu and mad cow disease 

rather than——

Mr. PACELLE. This is the way to get——

Mr. SENSENBRENNER.—cracking down——

Mr. PACELLE. This is the way to get at avian flu, is to crack down 

on these operations. What we have seen is when you do have felony-level penalties that cock fighters receive—there was just a guy 

quoted in the newspaper in New Mexico, which is now moving to 

ban cock fighting—he was a State legislator in Washington state, 

and he moved to New Mexico to engage in cock fights. 

You are seeing a migration of cock fighters and dog fighters to 

States with lesser penalties. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, if New Mexico is about ready to 

make it illegal, then we are 50 for 50. 

My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Leber, you testified a few moments ago that you do not engage in cock fighting, correct? 

Mr. LEBER. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. So it is not true that you enter cock fighting derbies 

under the name Windbriar Entry? 

Mr. LEBER. In years past, that has happened, sir, but no, not 

since the law has changed. 

Mr. NADLER. And when was that? 

92

Mr. LEBER. I forget the exact date, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Roughly? 

Mr. LEBER. Four years or 5 years ago. 

Mr. NADLER. So you used to be a cock fighter, but not in the last 

4 years or 5 years. 

Mr. LEBER. Or whenever that law became law. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, since that law was passed. Okay. 

Now, there is a newspaper called The Independent which had in 

January 2005 an article called ‘‘Cock Fighting May Be on its Last 

Legs’’—it is a major paper in Great Britain—which reads as follows, or part of the—says Jerry Leber, a retired primary school 

headmaster, said the actual fight was only a tiny part of the attraction of raising and fighting roosters. Birds were raised and trained 

for up to a year before they were ready. ‘‘It is a challenge for me 

to do it to the best of my ability,’’ he said. ‘‘When I go into the pit 

with my rooster and put it down and hear people say ’wow,’ well, 

that makes me feel proud.’’

Is that a correct quote? 

Mr. LEBER. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. So this is entirely incorrect, this——

Mr. LEBER. I don’t recall that conversation at all. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, thank you. 

I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. 

Nadler, and for the Committee allowing me to be here to observe 

and participate in this hearing. 

This is an issue I have been working with on the last 5 years, 

and I will reinforce what Mr. Pacelle said. This is a problem of not 

having a meaningful penalty. This is already illegal in 48 States. 

Dog fighting is illegal in every State. 

But the U.S. attorneys are not going to act aggressively for 

issues that are misdemeanors. And since I started this, I have been 

ashamed that Congress has caved in to interests, to special interests, and been unwilling to have meaningful penalties for this. 

We tried it in the last farm bill and, frankly, it was an unfortunate circumstance as far as I am concerned. 

This goes on everywhere. I mean, I would like to think that my 

State is a relatively enlightened State, and I know that our Humane Society is filled with dedicated men and women and children, 

volunteers who deeply care about animal welfare—nothing to do 

with terrorism, which I find just sort of a bizarre comment, to try 

and connect them. 

But we found recently in Oregon, they found a cock fighter, 43 

live chickens, the equipment, the metal spurs and gaffs, $10,000 in 

cash, cocaine, meth. This is the circle that comes up time and time 

again. You will find it in virtually every one of your States. We had 

a professional athlete involved with dog fighting in our community. 

It is time for us to step up and give the tools necessary to stop 

this barbaric practice. Every time the voters get a chance, to my 

knowledge, they have resoundingly voted to end this practice. And 

I think Congress ought to be a full partner by at least having a 

meaningful penalty. 

93

I deeply appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your having this hearing. We 

had over 300 co-sponsors last session and could not somehow get 

it to the floor. I am hopeful this session, where we have about that 

number already, that with your leadership, your concern, we can 

make an important step not just for animal welfare but dealing 

with avian flu, these vectors, dealing with drugs, criminal behavior. 

It will be an important tool for law enforcement as well as signaling that we are joining the rest of civilized society. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Does the gentleman yield back? The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Coble from North Carolina? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having 

this hearing. 

Mr. Pacelle, I am concerned about the terrorizing of researchers, 

et cetera. You did assure Mr. Delahunt, did you not, that no one 

from the Humane Society is in any way participating in these illegal activities? 

Mr. PACELLE. Absolutely. We have a policy statement approved 

by our board of directors to that effect. The chairman of our board 

is a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic. We have a tremendously distinguished board of directors. We have 10 million supports of the organization. We are as mainstream as you get in terms of——

Mr. COBLE. I want to be sure I heard you correctly. 

In fact, we had an individual who assisted last year at one of our 

hearings, Mr. Chairman, who subsequently became a target—I am 

not suggesting from the Humane Society——

Mr. PACELLE. Of course. 

Mr. COBLE.—but nonetheless became a target. 

Mr. Leber, let me put this question—let me change gears on you. 

Could any provision of H.R. 137 be used to limit or impede hunting, in your opinion? 

Mr. LEBER. Sir, it is a tough question to answer. I don’t know 

that I have the understanding to be able to give a quality answer 

to that. 

My thinking would be that there is a list of animal activities that 

the HSUS has as a pecking order or a target, and everything from 

what we have discussed here today, sir, until the point of it being 

illegal to own a dog or cat or any family pet. 

And I think those are just a list of priorities that eventually will 

be getting to hunting, fishing, rodeoing, circusing and all those 

other activities I think are——

Mr. COBLE. Well, what prompted my question, Mr. Chairman 

and Mr. Ranking Member, it seemed like I had heard somewhere, 

and I can’t recall from whom, who expressed concern about that it 

may impede hunting. 

That is why I put the question to you. 

Mr. PACELLE. May I address that? 

Mr. COBLE. Let me talk to Mr. Shelly. Mr. Shelly has been put 

on the backburner here. Let me bring him front and center again. 

Mr. Shelly, is the meth being produced on tribal lands, or is it 

being brought in by drug dealers, or both? 

Mr. SHELLY. It is being produced on tribal land and also being 

brought in. So I would say both. 

94

Mr. COBLE. And what have the tribes done to attempt to eliminate the supply of meth? 

Mr. SHELLY. That is why we are asking for a fund to deal with 

that. We are doing the best we can do interrupt the trafficking and 

also the production of our people doing it within the nation. And 

we are doing everything we can on that. We need help. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Mr. Pacelle, you wanted to be heard? 

Mr. PACELLE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Coble, very much. 

Mr. COBLE. And did you want to be heard again also, Mr. Leber? 

Mr. LEBER. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. All right. 

Go ahead, Mr. Pacelle. You want to beat that red light before it 

comes on. 

Mr. PACELLE. Yes. H.R. 137, the bill before you, has a provision, 

it is section 49, subsection (g)(1), and it defines the term, ‘‘animal 

fighting venture.’’ And it basically says it means any event which 

involves a fight between at least two animals and is conducted for 

the 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 and other animal or animals such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon or fox hunting. 

So hunting is specifically exempted, even if you are using dogs 

which are pursuing other quarry. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Leber? 

Mr. LEBER. Yes, sir. It seems as though the point has been made 

that the gamefowl industry is the drug trafficking association of 

the country, and I think that is far from true. 

I think drug trafficking is at all levels of our society, from the 

top to the bottom and everywhere in between. And we are just simply a segment of society, and why anyone would think there would 

be no drug activity involved in the gamefowl industry would simply 

be saying there is no drug activity involved in any other segment 

of society, whatever that segment may be. 

But we feel highly that it is far less so in the gamefowl breeders 

than many other segments of society. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Leber, in your written statement, you have written that the 

breeding and raising of gamefowl has held families together, created a sense of unity, trust and love for life due to the simple presence and aura for which the gamecock is noted. 

Now, gamecocks—and you represent the industry in your capacity as president of the United Gamefowl Breeders Association. Can 

you tell us exactly what a gamefowl is? 

Mr. LEBER. To my understanding, sir, the gamefowl originated 

from——

95

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I mean, what is it, instead of where it came 

from? What is a gamefowl? 

Mr. LEBER. It is a rooster, a hen or a little chicken of a breed 

of poultry. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And what kind of games does a gamefowl play 

other than cock fighting? 

Mr. LEBER. They are shown in poultry shows. They are used for 

food. The feathers are used for ties for fly fishing, and—off the top 

of my head, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But the principal purpose for a gamefowl is to 

produce fighting cocks, if you will, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. LEBER. That may be the majority use, but——

Mr. JOHNSON. In other words, most people who are members of 

your association engage in the game of cock fighting, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. LEBER. I could not testify to that, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you know it to be a fact that there is significant amounts of fowl fighting, cock fighting, that takes place 

throughout the United States of America, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. LEBER. I think that is a matter of record, sir, yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And this bill would seek to prohibit sponsoring or 

exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture. So in other 

words, it would ban cock fighting on a national level, would it not? 

Mr. LEBER. I think so, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And you are opposed to that, aren’t you? 

Mr. LEBER. I am opposed to the Federal Government being involved in issues where States should have the authority to make 

their own decisions, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And in the 48 States where cock fighting has been 

declared illegal, you are opposed to those State rules as well, are 

you not? 

Mr. LEBER. I don’t think they are in the best interest of our country. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And so you are here to protect the cock fighting 

industry, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. LEBER. No, sir. I represent the breeders of this country who 

raise and show in the agriculture business of raising gamefowl. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I suppose that if cock fighting were banned, 

then there would be a rapid decline in the number of game breeders operating in this country. Is that true or is that false? 

Mr. LEBER. I would not know, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Would you speculate that it would be? 

Mr. LEBER. I would suspect that if the demand of any product 

that is produced decreases, the likelihood of less production would 

follow. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you believe that it is okay for mankind to subject animals to cruelty? 

Mr. LEBER. No, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So in other words, the Federal Government does 

have an interest in protecting innocent animals from cruelty levied 

upon them by human beings. 

Mr. LEBER. I would think if the Federal Government so chose to 

do that, they would. 

96

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I mean, is that the morally correct thing 

that we should be doing up here? 

Mr. LEBER. Sir, I don’t know that I can answer for anyone else’s 

morals. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, your morals would cause you to protect those 

who would engage in animal cruelty with respect to cock fighting. 

Mr. LEBER. Sir, I came to testify on the transportation issues, not 

on the cock fighting issues. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But in the process, you impugn the character of 

an organization, the Human Society of the United States. And I 

find that objectionable. It seems like you equated them with a terrorist group. 

Is that what you wanted to tell the American people and tell this 

panel, is that the Humane Society of the United States is a terrorist group? 

Mr. LEBER. I quoted Mr. Lewis from the FBI, who said——

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, no, no, no, no. I am saying, yes or no, do you 

equate the Humane Society of the United States as a terrorist 

group? 

Mr. LEBER. Do I personally? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. LEBER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You do. 

Mr. LEBER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. 

Well, I have no further questions for this particular witness. 

But let me ask you, Mr. Pacelle, when is the last time your organization has engaged in terrorism in this country, sir? 

Mr. PACELLE. Never. We were founded in 1954 by some incredibly compassionate people who wanted to stop malicious cruelty toward animals. And we have built an organization that has 10 million supporters in the United States, and our entire mission is 

based on mercy and compassion. 

So terrorism is a countervailing force, as far as we are concerned. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We have been joined by Mr. Chabot from Ohio, Ms. Jackson Lee 

from Texas, and Mr. Gohmert from Texas. And we will call on Mr. 

Chabot at this time. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pacelle, let me ask a couple of questions, if I could. I wanted 

to clarify some of the aspects of H.R. 137, the animal fighting bill 

that we are discussing; in particular, subsections (c) and (d) of section 49, which address the use of the postal service or other interstate instrumentalities for promoting animal fighting ventures. 

It is my understanding that subsection (c) prohibits the use of 

Web sites and magazines to advertise the sale of fighting animals 

and promote animal fighting venture. Is that correct? And does 

subsection (d) limit subsection (c) as it applies to cock fighting in 

States where it is legal? 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you, Congressman Chabot. 

Yes, subsection (c) covers the animal fighting magazines because 

these publications, which I held up earlier, are commercial speech 

and also clearly promote animal fighting. 

97

They advertise fighting animals, weapons for sale in interstate 

commerce. For example, over the last 12 months there have been 

1,600 pages’ worth of advertisements for illegal interstate commercial transactions in the main two cock fighting magazines, Feathered Warrior and The Gamecock. 

Regarding subsection (d), subsection (d) of section 49 is copied 

from the current Animal Welfare Act animal fighting provisions, 

which is 7 USC—I won’t give you all the—it is in my testimony. 

The specific code is cited. 

Subsection (d) still acts as a limitation upon subsection (c) but, 

as before, only if the effect of that promotion is limited to cock 

fights in the two States where cock fighting is still legal. 

So as a practical matter, subsection (d) does not limit enforcement of (c) against the cock fighting magazines and Web site advertisements, because these materials promote animal fights in 

every State. 

They are sent to or read by buyers in many States who buy the 

fighting animals and implements and then use them in animal 

fights in States where cock fighting is illegal. 

So the basic gist of all that, Congressman, is that these magazines sell fighting birds, and they sell the fighting implements. And 

this is commercial speech, not free speech, not saying, ‘‘Well, cock 

fighting is okay.’’ They are promoting illegal activity, violating the 

Federal law. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And that is what I wanted to get into 

in my second question here. Are the first amendment concerns with 

respect to limiting commercial speech, as section 49 does, viable? 

And does this bill prohibit all commercial speech or only commercial speech that seeks to cloak an otherwise illegal act into the first 

amendment? Is this consistent with Supreme Court precedent? 

Mr. PACELLE. Yes. I think the Supreme Court has been clear on 

the issue. There is no first amendment protection for commercial 

speech where the underlying commercial transaction is lawfully 

prohibited, as is the case here. 

And subsection (c) is clearly constitutional. It is narrowly tailored 

with this in mind. The first amendment is built in right there. It 

only prohibits commercial speech, like the cock fighting magazines 

with all of their advertisements for contraband. 

The magazines are not political speech. They are basically just 

catalogs with hundreds of advertisements per issue for illegal 

transactions. 

The sellers are just soliciting the buyers to commit criminal acts, 

and they can’t cloak it under the first amendment just by throwing 

a little bit of non-commercial speech in there either. And the Supreme Court has been quite clear on that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And finally, it is also my understanding 

that the clerical amendment made under the bill which repeals the 

criminal penalty in the Animal Welfare Act leaves intact the rest 

of the statute, which deals with animal fighting. Is that correct? 

Mr. PACELLE. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

98

Oh, excuse me. Ms. Jackson Lee? I am sorry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank the witnesses, and I want to thank Mr. Blumenauer 

for his leadership on the cock fighting legislation, particularly since 

we in Texas have a disproportionate impact or are impacted by the 

utilization of these animals. 

And so I will pose questions on all three of the bills, but I do 

wish to start with Mr. Leber on something I think we would want 

to collectively raise our voices about. 

And that is as I have been in the area of such activity, I know 

that there is a fight to the death in many instances. And therefore, 

there is bloodletting. There is the loss of an animal. 

And certainly for those of us who believe in the concept of the 

value of entities that cannot protect themselves—and we all have 

our different views—that that in and of itself is a tragedy. 

But my concern would be the potential for the spread of disease. 

Certainly, in light of the last couple of days, we saw the announcement in England of the massive strain of avian flu. 

And so my question is in the course of the industry that you 

work with, is there any protections and concerns—concerns first, 

and protections that you put in place, that would convince me that 

there is a protection against a public health risk with cock fighting? 

Mr. LEBER. I think my answer to that would be that working 

with the Department for Agriculture and the national poultry improvement plans to continually monitor our flocks and to make 

sure they are completely disease free is first and foremost in the 

Gamefowl Breeders Association’s goals and objectives. 

And that is our entire focus with regard to disease control and 

prevention. We need to maintain healthy birds in our society, and 

those viruses do not discriminate. They will attack any poultry 

specimen. 

And we just try to make sure, with working through the universities and Department of Agricultures, that we maintain the 

healthiest flocks in the country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But you don’t know as to whether when they 

are engaging in cock fighting and letting of blood—you don’t have 

any particular secondary industry protections that would protect 

from the spread of disease. 

And of course, I use avian flu, but there may be many other aspects of disease that could be engaged with the letting of blood. 

Mr. LEBER. No, ma’am, I do not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. 

Let me ask Mr. Pacelle of the Humane Society that very question. What is to prevent the possible spread of disease if there are 

seemingly no real strictures and restrictions and guidelines for 

such a violent episode? 

Mr. PACELLE. Well, it is not a regulated industry because it is 

a criminal industry, so you don’t have USDA considering gamefowl 

or fighting dogs—I mean, it is the birds that we are talking about 

here, but the entire animal fighting industry is a criminal enterprise, for the most part. Even in New Mexico and Louisiana, the 

operations are not inspected. 

I will say that it is——

99

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So we don’t know what may be spread or what 

disease may——

Mr. PACELLE. No, we don’t. But at these derbies where people 

come from all over the country to fight their birds, and they mix 

the birds, some of the birds die and are thrown in the trash. Others 

survive and are brought back to their community. 

So they may be traveling seven States, eight States away, and 

if they do get an infection at one of these derbies, they can spread 

it across the country in a moment. And what you do see is the 

birds mixing a great deal, and you do see the possibility of animalto-human transmission of avian flu. 

We saw it in Southeast Asia, where sometimes the birds go down 

because they have been struck with a gaff in the lung, and their 

lung fills with blood, and the cock fighters try to rouse the bird to 

fight longer because they have got bets on the bird. So sometimes——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If you could wrap up so I can get Mr. Shelly 

a question or two——

Mr. PACELLE. Yes. Some of the cock fighters do put their mouth 

over the bird’s mouth to suck the blood out of the lungs. There is 

no better pathway for transmission of the disease from animal to 

human than that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me just say you have convinced me. 

Mr. Shelly, I am very pleased that we are moving toward helping 

with respect to methamphetamine, but tell me the impact on 

youth, the Native American youth, and the importance of this legislation with this epidemic of methamphetamine. 

Mr. SHELLY. Okay. Thank you for the question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Shelly. 

Mr. SHELLY. Thank you. Youth is really picking this up, and I 

did mention it in my testimony here, that youth is getting involved 

in this, and the young people—and percentage wise, and they are 

picking it up. It is available out there, and they don’t know much 

about it. This is where the education prevention—that we are asking for to do that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are some of us that find cock fighting as a vile, despicable, 

terrible misuse of animal lives. Despite its being so despicable, 

there are some things that are reserved to the States when it 

comes to criminal laws. 

And one of the things that I was amazed about back during the 

days I was a trial judge on the district bench handling felonies was 

to see people running for U.S. Congress and promising people we 

are going to get in there and we are going to do something about 

all the violent crime, the rapes, the burglaries. 

And at one point I laughed to my wife and remarked that is ridiculous, that is not their job, that is not in accordance with the 

Constitution, because some things are reserved to the States, and 

that is everything that is not specifically enumerated. 

100

And so despite my personal feelings about cock fighting, I have 

reservations about whether or not this may be an invasion of 

States’ rights, ability or right, to either legislate or not. 

And since I have been in Congress, I have noticed one of the 

things that all too frequently happens is groups that would rather 

lobby one time in Washington rather than 50 times in 50 States 

just say hey, it would be a whole lot easier and cheaper if we just 

go lobby Washington one time, and that way we don’t have to go 

to the States. 

And I really find it at least a diminution of the Constitution 

itself. That is my concern. 

Mr. PACELLE. May I address that? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, that would be fine. Thank you, Mr. Pacelle. 

Mr. PACELLE. Thank you very much. 

You know, I am sure Mr. Leber can testify to the fact that we 

have a very robust level of activities at the State level on this. 

There are probably 10 bills at the State level——

Mr. GOHMERT. I would hope so. 

Mr. PACELLE.—to strengthen the efforts there. 

This is an industry, because you don’t have that many people in 

any one State who are doing this, the nature of it is interstate, and 

there is foreign commerce. There are fighting derbies—a world 

slasher derby in the Philippines. Americans go over and bring birds 

to the Philippines. There is a trade in these birds that is worldwide. Even dog fighting—there is a pit bull trade from the United 

States to Eastern Europe, to Russia, for fights, where people are 

wagering thousands and thousands of dollars. 

We are dealing just with the interstate and foreign commerce 

issue with this legislation. If New Mexico or Louisiana chooses to 

allow animal fighting, this legislation does not stop them. It simply 

stops the movement of fighting birds or fighting animals into the 

State or the movement of those birds or other animals from the 

State to other jurisdictions. 

So it is just the interstate and foreign commerce nexus. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Anybody else care to comment? 

Mr. LEBER. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, Mr. Leber? 

Mr. LEBER. Thank you. I find it difficult to comprehend that if 

a State allows an activity that it is illegal to go into that State and 

participate in an activity, whether it be horse racing, buying a lottery ticket, racing dogs, or whatever it may be, and yet that is 

what this legislation does. 

It says you cannot come into our State and do what we specifically allow you to do because you live from another State. 

Mr. PACELLE. With an animal, not——

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Pacelle, do you care to comment again? 

Mr. PACELLE. It is simply if you move the animal with you in 

interstate commerce and bring them, so if you are in Texas and 

want to bring animals from Texas into Louisiana to fight at the 

Sunset Game Club, you are not allowed to do that under Federal 

law. 

And that has been criminalized since 2002. We are not creating 

a new Federal crime here except for the interstate transport of the 

101

cock fighting implements. The core criminal behavior is already illegal under Federal law. 

We are just upgrading the penalties to provide a deterrent, because we have seen that a lot of the cock fighters and dog fighters 

will stop doing the activity if there is a Federal felony threat. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I am glad that you are at work on these 

issues in the States. But there is another issue that sometimes 

arises. Is this just, you know, the first foot that will be followed by 

another and another? 

I have heard some representation that perhaps the Humane Society of the United States is against all types of hunting, legal or illegal, that it all should be illegal. What is your personal feeling 

about that? 

Mr. PACELLE. Well, the Humane Society, of course, has a set of 

policy positions. They are on our Web site at HumaneSociety.org. 

We are not just an animal fighting organization. We advance a 

larger ethic about humane treatment of animals. 

There are a couple of hunting bills that we are interested in, and 

a couple before this Committee. 

One is to stop Internet hunting, where people—a guy in Texas 

had a fenced ranch and has exotic animals to be shot for a fee in 

a guaranteed kill arrangement, and he set up a Web site with a 

motorized rifle and a camera, and you could click on and shoot an 

animal through the Internet. 

And Tom Davis introduced that bill with Collin Peterson, who is 

one of the leaders of the Sportsmen’s Caucus, to try to curb that 

practice. 

We are also very concerned about these game ranches where animals are shot in fenced enclosures and there is no sporting chance 

for the animal, and it basically is an open-air abattoir. 

So we are concerned about the most abusive practices, and I 

think that would be the general take of the Humane Society on the 

wide range of issues in terms of how humans deal with animals. 

We want to curb the worst abuses. 

And you will see our legislative agenda, which again is published 

on our Web site. Almost every issue has 80 percent of the American 

public behind it. And this one, of course, is right up there. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Any other comment, Mr. Leber? 

Mr. LEBER. Yes, sir. To quote some HSUS information, ‘‘If we 

could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would’’—Mr. 

Wayne Pacelle, president, HSUS. ‘‘We want to stigmatize hunting. 

We see it as the next logical target, and we believe it is vulnerable’’—Mr. Wayne Pacelle, president, HSUS. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert. 

And I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Sabin, is an indigent defendant in Federal court charged 

with a misdemeanor entitled to a lawyer? 

Mr. SABIN. I believe the answer is yes, but I would have to check. 

Mr. SCOTT. In your testimony, you suggest that we change the 

law enforcement provision in the spoofing bill from an affirmative 

defense to an exception. Why is that important? 

102

Mr. SABIN. It had been under H.R. 5304 an exception, the idea 

being that the Government would not have to have a rebuttal of 

or put on evidence to demonstrate that law enforcement should be 

properly allowed to pursue investigatory or intelligence investigations to use this technique. 

So rather than putting it as an issue in the case, you carve it 

out as an exception, and therefore it is authorized and appropriate 

for law enforcement to continue its normal course of activity. 

Mr. SCOTT. In the prima facie case, would you have to prove that 

it was not a law enforcement—as an element of proof for violation 

if it is an exception, not an affirmative defense? Would you have 

to prove that it was not for the purposes of law enforcement in the 

case in chief? 

Mr. SABIN. No, but I think that was the intent in the prior Congress, and I don’t understand why, under 1040 subsection (c) you 

would say it is a defense to a prosecution for an offense. 

Why not allow law enforcement clearly and appropriately to proceed with its investigations in that fashion rather than injecting it 

as an issue to become part of the case? 

Mr. SCOTT. You also mentioned that where we say an actual person that the word ‘‘actual’’ is problematic. Could you explain what 

you mean by that? 

Mr. SABIN. Yes. I think the concern that it may not cover companies or the Government entity, so we——

Mr. SCOTT. The word ‘‘person’’ generally includes corporations, 

but by saying actual person you think that may complicate that assumption? 

Mr. SABIN. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Mr. Pacelle, cock fighting and animal fighting is illegal in just 

about every State. In Virginia it is illegal if there is wagering or 

if there is paid admission, which covers just about every situation. 

Mr. PACELLE. Right. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you explain why we need Federal prosecution? 

Mr. PACELLE. Well, again, we already have a statute that has 

been on the books since 1976. It was amended in 2002 to ban any 

interstate or foreign commerce in fighting animals. It is simply an 

additional tool for local, State and Federal Governments to crack 

down on what has become a national and international industry. 

Animal fighting is a gateway of activity to other crimes, and the 

Federal Government has a real interest in cracking down not only 

on animal fighting but the range of other criminal conduct that is 

fostered and abetted at these animal fighting operations. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Leber, what rights do people now have that will 

be denied if this bill passes? 

Mr. LEBER. I think the next logical step from the Humane Society’s perspective——

Mr. SCOTT. Wait. Wait a minute. If this bill passes——

Mr. LEBER. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. SCOTT. If this bill passes, not what may be next. 

Mr. LEBER. Okay. 

Mr. SCOTT. If this bill passes, what rights will be denied? 

Mr. LEBER. I think the right would be perceived that if transportation across State lines occurs, it is automatically for fighting purVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 May 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\CRIME\020607\33102.000 HJUD1 PsN: 33102
103

poses, even though the gamefowl may be transported for show purposes, breeding purpose or exchange of brood stock, or things of 

that nature. 

And there is no way to distinguish or differentiate between a 

child going to a poultry show with their bird than someone going 

across State lines to exchange brood fowl. 

Mr. SCOTT. Goes the Government have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to show what the purpose was? 

Mr. LEBER. Sir, I would assume so, but that is beyond my understanding. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, let’s get the prosecutor. 

I know that is not what you came here for, but——

Mr. SABIN. What is the question? I will jump into this debate. I 

have tried to stay out of that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Nice try. [Laughter.] 

Under that bill, would not the Government have the burden of 

proof beyond a reasonable doubt to show the purpose of crossing 

State lines? 

Mr. SABIN. Yes. An essential element—in order to have jurisdiction, the Government has to, either under the commerce clause or 

other provisions, show an interstate nexus. And the Government 

bears the burden of each and every element and to the exclusion 

of every reasonable doubt. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Leber, in your written testimony, you suggested 

the bill could generate losses totaling billions of dollars. How does 

the bill create that loss? 

Mr. LEBER. I think it eliminates the gamefowl industry per se, 

and consequently, if you eliminate the industry, you eliminate the 

billions of dollars in the economy. 

Mr. SCOTT. What can you not—well, I guess, again, what can you 

not do—what can you do now that you couldn’t do if the bill 

passed? 

Mr. LEBER. Say that again, sir, please. 

Mr. SCOTT. What can you do now that you would not be able to 

do if the bill passed? 

Mr. LEBER. I don’t think there is anything different, but I think 

the presumed threat of becoming a felon, whether you are engaged 

in legal or other activities, simply reduces the involvement in raising gamefowl. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Shelly, just let me say that we apologize for the oversight in 

the previous legislation——

Mr. SHELLY. No, no, it has been wonderful. 

Mr. SCOTT.—and we are going to try to correct it as soon as we 

can. So we recognize the need for the grants and how much good 

they can do, and we will try to get that fixed as soon as we can. 

So I appreciate your coming to testify. Do you have a final comment? 

Mr. SHELLY. The final comment, Mr. Chairman—thank you, Congressmen that are here, the Committee. I really wanted to address 

Ms. Jackson Lee, the congresswoman, about the question she asked 

about what percentage of teenagers are using it. 

And I did say we have over 300,000 Navajos, and this small town 

that I mentioned in my testimony, Tuba City, with a population of 

104

9,000, and 12 percent of that Tuba City teens use meth, about 12 

percent. And could you imagine 350,000 population now? That is 4 

years ago. That is on the rise. 

And I know the meth is a problem for the teens out there. It is 

probably in the high percentage. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to answer 

that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Do any of the witnesses have any final comments? 

Mr. LEBER. Yes, sir. With regard to the question I was posed earlier with regard to considering the Humane Society as an animal 

terrorist group, I feel like that any group that could kill 4 million 

to 5 million dogs, cats, puppies every year—every year—could be 

called nothing but for those 4 million to 5 million animals and puppies. 

They don’t have an option. They don’t have a choice. The gas 

chamber or whatever method is used is absolute. And that is just 

my thinking with regard to that kind of use of animals. 

If we are humane in that regard, it looks like we would use the 

money to shelter, save and take care of those animals, as opposed 

to the other. 

Mr. PACELLE. I am afraid I have to answer that. The Humane 

Society of the United States works with local Human Societies 

across the country. We don’t control every local Humane Society in 

this nation. 

These organizations strive to the greatest degree to provide 

homes for animals and to encourage adoption, to spay and neuter 

animals. And if a decision is made to euthanize, it is a failure of 

society, not these local organizations who are striving to do their 

best. 

And they do it with the most humane method. They don’t put 

animals in a pit and fight for 2 hours and get enjoyment from the 

activity. 

And to call an organization a terrorist organization because animals in society are overpopulated and regrettably euthanized is an 

extreme and ridiculous definition of terrorism. 

And I presume that when cock fighting was banned in Oklahoma 

there were 2.5 million fighting birds in that State. They are all terrorists from the gamefowl association as well if they are killing 

those animals. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

If there are no further comments and no further questions, I 

would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Members may have additional written questions for the witnesses, which we will forward to you and ask that you answer as 

promptly as you can, to be made part of the record. 

And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 

1 week for submission of additional materials. 

And without objection, the Committee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(105)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you Chairman Scott. I would like to take this opportunity at our first subcommittee hearing to congratulate you on your new role as Chairman of the Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee. I value our friendship as colleagues from neighboring Virginia districts, and I know this friendship will allow 

us to work closely together to implement common sense, bipartisan legislation. I 

look forward to working with you on issues of importance to the American public. 

Today, the Subcommittee will markup three bills immediately following the legislative hearing. In the previous Congress, the Crime Subcommittee eventually 

changed its practice to hold mark ups on a separate day from the legislative hearing 

on that same measure. Such a policy makes sense since the purpose of the hearing 

is to review the legislation and take testimony on possible changes or improvements. 

I understand that you, Chairman Scott, intend to continue the policy against same 

day markups, and that such scheduling will be limited to situations where you and 

I agree to such a schedule or where there is an emergency requiring such scheduling. I want to thank you for working with me on this issue and I appreciate, as 

always, your cooperation in confirming this arrangement. (Mr. Scott may ask you 

to yield to address this issue). 

Last year, Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 

as a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act. Unfortunately, Native American governments were unintentionally left out of two of 

the three grant programs implemented with the reauthorization: the Hot Spots Program benefitting local law enforcement and the Drug-Endangered Children Grant 

Program. 

H.R. 545, the ‘‘Native American Meth Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007,’’ 

clarifies language regarding tribal eligibility for all three programs to combat the 

methamphetamine-associated problems within Native American communities. I 

strongly support this legislation, which is necessary to correct the accidental omission of Native American communities from participating in critical meth grant programs. H.R. 137, the ‘‘Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act,’’ increases existing federal criminal penalties for illegal dogfighting and cockfighting. Currently, 

dogfighting is prohibited in all 50 states. Cockfighting is outlawed in most states 

under laws specifically prohibiting it or general prohibitions against animal fighting 

or animal cruelty. Under existing federal law, animal fighting is a misdemeanor, 

carrying a maximum penalty of one year incarceration. Although Congress in 2003 

increased the criminal fines for animal fighting, the term of imprisonment has not 

been increased since its original enactment in 1976. 

H.R.137 creates a new animal fighting offense in title 18, and modifies the penalties to make it a felony offense by increasing the maximum penalty from one to 

three years imprisonment. The Act broadens the law to prohibit the interstate promotion of animal fighting and the interstate purchase, sale, delivery or transport 

of any animal for use in an animal fighting venture. I am a cosponsor of this bill, 

along with 286 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and I urge Members 

to support its passage. 

H.R. 740, which we are also discussing today, addresses an increasingly prevalent 

form of fraud known as caller ID spoofing. Spoofing involves using fake or misleading caller ID information to facilitate a fraudulent telephone call to an individual in order to obtain their personal information. Call recipients unwittingly divulge their names, addresses, social security numbers or other private information 

106

under the mistaken belief that the caller represents a bank, credit card company, 

or even a court of law. 

The ‘‘PHONE Act of 2007’’ imposes a fine and prison term up to five years for 

those who engage in call spoofing. This legislation will help to deter telephone fraud, 

to protect consumers from harassment, and to increase protection for consumers and 

their personally identifiable information from identity thieves. Further, the bill provides additional law enforcement tools to effectively prosecute frauds facilitated by 

spoofing. The House passed similar legislation at the end of the last Congress and 

I support its favorable adoption today. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and I thank you Mr. Chairman 

for working with us on these bills and the subcommittee schedule.

107

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHIL KIKO, ESQUIRE, SENIOR ADVISER, OFFICE OF THE

HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.


Kiko1.eps
108


Kiko2.eps
109

Æ


Kiko3.eps