108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–756 

ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION 

ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2004 

OCTOBER 7, 2004.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 4264] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

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

(H.R. 4264) to amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen 

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

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 4 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 5 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 5 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 6 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 6 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 6 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 6 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 8 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

2 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 

2004’’. 

SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘§ 49. Animal fighting prohibition 

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

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful 

for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting 

venture, if any animal in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. 

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

involving live birds in a State where it would not be in violation of the law, it 

shall be unlawful under this subsection for a person to sponsor or exhibit a bird 

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

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

‘‘(b) BUYING, SELLING, DELIVERING, OR TRANSPORTING ANIMALS FOR PARTICIPATION IN ANIMAL FIGHTING VENTURE.—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver, or receive for purposes of transportation, in 

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

dog or other animal participate in an animal fighting venture. 

‘‘(c) USE OF POSTAL SERVICE OR OTHER INTERSTATE INSTRUMENTALITY FOR PROMOTING ANIMAL FIGHTING VENTURE.—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or any instrumentality 

of interstate commerce for commercial speech promoting an animal fighting venture 

except as performed outside the limits of the States of the United States. 

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

prohibited by such subsection shall be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in 

violation of the laws thereof. 

‘‘(e) SHARP INSTRUMENTS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, 

buy, transport, or deliver in interstate or foreign commerce a knife, a gaff, or any 

other sharp instrument attached, or designed or intended to be attached, to the leg 

of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture. 

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

fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for each such 

violation. 

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

‘‘(1) the term ‘animal fighting venture’ means any event which involves a 

fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment except that the term ‘animal fighting venture’ shall not 

be deemed to include any activity the primary purpose of which involves the 

use of one or more animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting; 

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

wire, radio, television or other form of communication in, or using a facility of, 

interstate commerce; 

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

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession 

of the United States; and 

‘‘(4) the term ‘animal’ means any live bird, or any live dog or other mammal, except man. 

‘‘(h) CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.—The provisions of this section do not supersede or otherwise invalidate any such State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures except in case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between any requirements thereunder and this section or any rule, regulation, or standard hereunder.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents for chapter 3 of title 18, is 

amended by inserting after the item relating to section 48 the following: 

‘‘49. Animal fighting prohibition.’’. 

(c) REPEAL OF CRIMINAL PENALTY IN THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.—Section 26 of 

the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) is amended by striking subsection (e). 

3 

1 Human Society of the United States, Fact Sheet in Support of S. 736 & H.R. 1532, 2003. 2 Id. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 4264 strengthens the prohibitions against animal fighting 

ventures within the United States. Under current law, animal 

fighting prohibitions are misdemeanors under Title 7 of the U.S. 

Code. H.R. 4264 makes the buying, selling, or transporting of animals for participation in animal fighting ventures felonies to be 

charged under Title 18. It authorizes jail time of up to 2 years for 

violations of Federal animal fighting law doubling the current misdemeanor penalty of up to 1 year. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Since the misdemeanor penalty for animal fighting was codified 

in Federal law in 1976, Federal authorities have pursued fewer 

than a half dozen animal fighting cases. The USDA has received 

innumerable tips from informants and requests to assist with state 

and local prosecutions.1 In fact, the animal fighting industry continues to thrive within the United States despite 50 state laws that 

ban dogfighting and 48 state laws that ban cockfighting.2 Numerous nationally circulated animal fighting magazines still promote 

these cruel practices and advertise fighting animals and the 

accouterments of animal fighting. There are also several active 

websites for animal fighting enthusiasts, and paid lobbyists advocating animal fighters’ interests. 

Two years ago, Congress enacted amendments to the Animal 

Welfare Act which took effect on May 14, 2003. Under those 

amendments, it was no longer legal to knowingly sell, buy, transport, deliver, or receive a bird or other animal in interstate or foreign commerce for the purposes of participation in an animal fighting venture such as cockfighting or dog fighting. This change closed 

a loophole that allowed shipment of birds from a state where cockfighting is illegal to a state where it is legal. However, the amendments did not increase penalties. 

Since that time, the reluctance to bring cases has continued. H.R. 

4264, the ‘‘Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004,’’

addresses that problem by increasing the penalties. The primary 

reason for this law is to give prosecutors a greater incentive to pursue these cases. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held in the Committee on the Judiciary on 

H.R.4264. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 23, 2004, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered favorably 

reported the bill H.R.4264, with an amendment, by a voice vote, a 

quorum being present. On September 30, 2004, the Committee met 

in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R.4264, 

with an amendment, by a recorded vote of 18 to 8, a quorum being 

present. 

4 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

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

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of 

H.R.4264: 

1. The motion to report H.R. 4264 favorably, as amended, was 

adopted by a vote of 18 yeas to 8 noes. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon .......................................................................................................

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Hart ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Carter .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mrs. Blackburn .................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 18 8 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

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

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

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

5 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

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

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

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

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

the bill, H.R. 4264, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, October 6, 2004. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4264, the ‘‘Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004.’’

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman, 

who can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 4264—Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004. 

H.R. 4264 would make buying, selling, or transporting animals 

for participation in animal fighting ventures (defined as any event 

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

crime. Because those prosecuted and convicted under this legislation could be subject to criminal fines, the government might collect additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collections of such fines 

are recorded in the budget as revenues, which are deposited in the 

Crime Victims Fund and later spent. However, because of the small 

number of cases likely to be involved, CBO expects that any impact 

on revenues and direct spending would be insignificant. 

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

law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations also would 

be insignificant and subject to the availability of appropriated 

funds. 

H.R. 4262 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S. Mehlman, 

who can be reached at 226–2860. This estimate was approved by 

Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

6 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

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

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.4264 will help to 

discourage interstate transport of animals and instruments for animal fighting. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

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

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

This section establishes the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Animal 

Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004.’’

Section 2. Enforcement of Animal Fighting Prohibitions 

This section amends Title 18 to make it a crime for any individual to knowingly sponsor, buy, sell, deliver or transport animals 

for participation in animal fighting ventures. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for 

not more than 2 years for each such violation. 

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

use the postal service or other interstate instrumentality for promoting an animal fighting venture or for selling, buying, or delivering in interstate or foreign commerce a knife, gaff, or any other 

sharp instrument attached or intended to be attached to the leg of 

a bird for use in an animal fighting venture. 

This bill expressly provides that this section will not supersede 

or otherwise invalidate any State, local or municipal legislation or 

ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures. 

To eliminate any confusion, the legislation repeals the Title 7 

provisions providing for a 1-year penalty for the activity described 

above, which will now be contained in Title 18. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

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

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

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

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

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * * 

7 

CHAPTER 3—ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND PLANTS 

Sec. 

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

* * * * * * * 

49. Animal fighting prohibition. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 49. Animal fighting prohibition 

(a) SPONSORING OR EXHIBITING AN ANIMAL IN AN ANIMAL

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

shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in an animal fighting venture, if any animal 

in the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. 

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

fighting ventures involving live birds in a State where it would 

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

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

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

received in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of 

participation in the fighting venture. 

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

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

or receive for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign 

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

or other animal participate in an animal fighting venture. 

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

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

United States Postal Service or any instrumentality of interstate 

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

United States. 

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

the activities prohibited by such subsection shall be unlawful with 

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

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

thereof. 

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

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

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

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

in an animal fighting venture. 

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

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

2 years, or both, for each such violation. 

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

(1) the term ‘‘animal fighting venture’’ means any event 

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

that the term ‘‘animal fighting venture’’ shall not be deemed to 

include any activity the primary purpose of which involves the 

8 

use of one or more animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting; 

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

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

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

the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

and any territory or possession of the United States; and 

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

or other mammal, except man. 

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

do not supersede or otherwise invalidate any such State, local, or 

municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures except in case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between 

any requirements thereunder and this section or any rule, regulation, or standard hereunder. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 26 OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 

SEC. 26. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

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

* * * * * * * 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The next item on the agenda is H.R. 

4264, the ‘‘Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004.’’

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Coble, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security, for a motion. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security reports favorably the bill, H.R. 4264, with a single amendment in the nature 

of a substitute. It moves its favorable recommendation to the full 

House. 

This bill, Mr. Chairman, was unanimously approved by the Subcommittee. I am a cosponsor. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the bill will be 

considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the 

9 

Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute which the 

Members have before them will be considered as read, considered 

as the original text for purposes of amendment, and then open for 

amendment at any point. 

[The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:] 

10 


4264A1.eps
11 


4264A2.eps
12 


4264A3.eps
13 


4264A4.eps
14 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, to strike the last word. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on September 

23 this Subcommittee held a markup on this bill, the ‘‘Animal 

Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2004.’’ No substantial 

changes have been made to the bill as Members on both sides of 

the aisle have recognized the need for appropriate penalties to curb 

the vicious practice of animal fighting. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield for a brief statement 

to the primary sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin, 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be very 

brief. I want to thank the Chairman of both the full Committee and 

the Subcommittee as well as the Ranking Members of the full Committee and the Subcommittee for supporting this legislation. I also 

want to thank the Humane Society of the U.S. and my colleague 

Mr. Gallegly for his hard work on this bill. This bill has very broad 

bipartisan cosponshorship. 

Dog fighting and cock fighting are obviously barbaric practices 

that involve putting animals together in a fight to the death for alleged entertainment and gambling purposes. The animals are typically given drugs to make them hyper aggressive and are forced to 

continue fighting even after suffering grievous harm. 

Our legislation does not change anything for the States that do 

allow animal fighting, but would create felony penalties for the 

interstate sale, purchase, transportation or delivery of dogs, birds 

or other animals for the purpose of participation in an animal 

fighting venture. 

Over 150 local police and sheriffs departments from across the 

country have called on Congress to enact this legislation, and they 

want the Federal Government to step up to the plate and join with 

them in cracking down on illegal dog fighting and cock fighting, 

which so often involve interstate participants. 

The National Chicken Council has also endorsed this legislation 

because it also considers cock fighting to be an inhumane practice. 

It is also concerned with the nationwide traffic in game birds, that 

it creates a continuing hazard for the dissemination of animal diseases. This bill will not only help stop the inhuman practice of dog 

fighting and cock fighting but will help to ensure the health of our 

poultry industry. 

I thank the Chairman for his consideration and urge approval. 

Mr. COBLE. I reclaim my time and yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I move to strike the 

last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this markup on H.R. 4264, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. 

For the reasons stated previously, Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor 

of the bill and urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’

opening statements will appear in the record at this point. 

15 

Are there amendments? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from California, Mr. 

Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I didn’t have an amendment. I 

just wanted to make sure my statement as the sponsor of the bill, 

cosponsor of the bill, be made a part of the record. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’

opening statements may appear in the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. More than 150 local police and sheriff’s departments 

have requested this legislation and I am pleased that the Committee is considering 

it. 

A few years ago, Congress enacted legislation to tighten federal law and close 

some loopholes that were allowing animal fighting to thrive nationwide, in spite of 

bans in virtually every state. 

But Congress didn’t finish the job. We left in place weak penalties that have proven ineffective. Misdemeanor penalties simply don’t provide a meaningful deterrent. 

Those involved in animal fighting ventures—where thousands of dollars typically 

change hands in the associated gambling activity—consider misdemeanor penalties 

a ‘‘slap on the wrist’’ or merely a ‘‘cost of doing business.’’ Moreover, we’ve heard 

from U.S. Attorneys that they are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases with 

just a misdemeanor penalty. 

In recent years, we are seeing a marked rise in the frequency of animal fighting 

busts in communities across the country. Local police and sheriffs are increasingly 

concerned about animal fighting, not only because of the animal cruelty involved, 

but also because of the other crimes that often go hand-in-hand, including illegal 

gambling, drug traffic, and acts of human violence. 

In addition, there are concerns cockfighters spread diseases that jeopardize poultry flocks and even public health. We in California experienced this first-hand, when 

cockfighters spread exotic Newcastle disease, which was so devastating to many of 

our poultry producers in 2002 and 2003. That outbreak cost U.S. taxpayers ‘‘nearly 

$200 million to eradicate, and cost the U.S. poultry industry many millions more 

in lost export markets,’’ according to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman. 

It is time Congress finishes the job and helps state and local law enforcement officials who have requested a strengthening of federal laws to rid animal fighting from 

communities that do not want it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman’s recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I went through this discussion when I was in the legislature in Iowa and I see this bill come 

up today, and I speak in opposition to this ‘‘strike all’’ amendment 

and on the basis of the 10th amendment it does step on States 

rights. The States have laws that address this, and I believe they 

are adequate. I think this legislation is unnecessary. 

But the real foundation for it is the nature of dogs and roosters 

is that they do fight, whether they are hunting dogs or what they 

might be, and I don’t support that and it doesn’t happen in my district that I know. But I do support the 10th amendment. And furthermore, the issues that have been constitutionalized by our seated Supreme Court, one of those is the things that are decided to 

be a constitutional right that can be done to babies in the process 

of being born, struggling babies in the process of being born. And 

if we can outlaw something like this and constitutionalize a behavVerDate Aug 04 2004 12:34 Oct 08, 2004 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR756.XXX HR756
16 

ior to people the way we do, I think it diminishes human life, and 

for that reason I will be opposing this bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WATT. Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. I just wanted to take a minute or two to acknowledge 

the irony of the selective support for States rights in this Committee on the part of some people. I actually agree that this is a 

stretch to be using interstate commerce as a means to get into 

something that the Federal Government has not been involved in. 

But it would be great if the support for the 10th amendment were 

a lot more uniform and consistent when it was actually a lot more 

meaningful. And so while I agree with the gentleman who just 

spoke, I am hoping that on some occasions where it really has some 

more practical and meaningful benefit, he will join the States 

Rights Caucus, and consistently be a member of the States Rights 

Caucus. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Yeah, I am happy to yield to Mr. 

Delahunt and then I am happy to yield to——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I just want to echo your sentiments about the 

good news coming from the other side. I am glad to hear that at 

least the 10th amendment is being respected as it applies to roosters. And with that I will yield back to my friend. 

Mr. WATT. It doesn’t seem to be respected when it applies to individuals very much, I can tell you that. Did Mr. Gallegly want me 

to yield to him? I will be happy to yield to you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 

like to just respond to your comment about how the Federal Government—your reticence to maybe get the Federal Government 

more involved in this and to create a law. The fact remains there 

is Federal law on this very act right now. The fact is that it is a 

misdemeanor and the U.S. Attorney is not nearly as apt to prosecute on misdemeanors as we would be able to do. 

Mr. WATT. I appreciate the gentleman pointing that out to me. 

Had I been here when that passed I probably would have taken the 

same position. If you follow the theory that every time something 

moves in interstate commerce the Federal Government has the prerogative to control it, there really won’t be any States rights anymore. And I guess that is you all’s theory when it comes to federalizing tort standards, too. Some scalpel or knife or device that was 

used in an operation in an operating room in a State moved in 

interstate commerce. So therefore, it is appropriate for the Federal 

Government to take over the whole territory. 

And I just—I think, you know, I don’t have any real problem 

with the substance of the bill. But we don’t do ourselves much good 

to assume that State legislators are not smart enough to handle 

cock fighting in States. I mean, you know, States have the prerogative to control some things in this country, and we should respect 

that prerogative and we should do it a heck of a lot more consistVerDate Aug 04 2004 12:34 Oct 08, 2004 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR756.XXX HR756
17 

ently than my colleagues on your side of the aisle seem to be willing to do it. 

You know, it is one thing to do it for chickens. I just wish you 

would do it for people. And I am happy to yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Bachus. 

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I know that we are trying to get 

through this hearing, but I think that an important point that Mr. 

King made was missed. And he talked about the irony of what Mr. 

King said and the inconsistency. I think what Mr. King said was 

he was pointing out the irony and the inconsistency that we are 

going to make it a felony to protect chickens when we permit unborn children to be killed. And I think that was his point as I saw 

it, and I think he made his point well, that if we are going to set 

priorities it is ironic that we would actually put and make it a felony to take the life of a chicken. And I don’t know how many cocks 

or chickens have been killed in all this, but I would say that we 

have made no attempt, and we, as he said, we permit a child within months of its being born when it is very much alive to be taken. 

Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BACHUS. I think that is quite a bit more ironic and inconsistent and really immoral. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BACHUS. I would yield. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just 

like to clarify your comment about protecting children versus protecting animals. There are many of us that have voted our entire 

career to protect the lives of unborn children that are supporting 

this bill, and I think that we are—you know, people have to stand 

up and be accountable for how they vote on each one. So let’s not 

mix apples and oranges. 

Mr. BACHUS. I would yield to the gentleman from California. I 

am not mixing anything. What I am saying is that his point was 

very well made. And for Mr. King to be accused of saying something that doesn’t make any sense. 

Mr. WATT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BACHUS. Something that was ironic was what he said and 

that was inconsistent, he was very consistent in what he said in 

pointing out the inconsistency and it is tremendously ironic. Probably the most ironic thing about our laws today that we are going 

to make it a felony to protect chickens. 

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BACHUS. And we yet—the same Committee that rushes to do 

that—and I am not saying that you don’t have a right to do that—

that they refuse to protect unborn children. And I very much want 

to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. King. I think of anything said this morning he makes more sense than anybody. 

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BACHUS. I would yield. 

Mr. WATT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I don’t think you 

ever heard me say Mr. King said anything insane. 

Mr. BACHUS. No, you said ironic and inconsistent. 

Mr. WATT. Well, I didn’t even say it was inconsistent in this particular case where States rights—I agree with him on the States 

rights issue. My problem is that he has been very selective and all 

18 

of you have been very selective in your support of the 10th amendment and States rights. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, I would say okay. 

Mr. WATT. That is the only point I am making. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, I will take back my time and say this. Selectivity is exactly what we are talking about here. We have selected 

to protect the rights of cocks and chickens and not the right of a 

child who is 3 months away from being born. And with that I yield 

back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Wisconsin, who 

is the author of the bill. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and very briefly. I do not 

wish to debate abortion today or other important issues. I simply 

want to remind everyone that this bill does not change anything, 

does not change the law for States that do allow animal fighting. 

It focuses on animals that are transported across State lines. That 

is its sole purpose here. So I would like to remind everybody what 

the bill is about, what it is not about. 

The debates that we have heard are great debates. We have had 

them before. I am sure we will have them again. And with that I 

yield back to the Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? If there are 

no amendments, the question is on—— Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas. Do you 

have an amendment? 

Mr. CARTER. No, I do not. I would like to be recognized on this 

discussion for just a moment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that 

something concerns me very much in this is the fact that we every 

day talk about the lack of resources and the strain we place on the 

law enforcement resources of the United States, our border patrol, 

our Federal FBI and all these other folks that we have in the enforcement positions that have to go out and enforce the laws. And 

I think this is way beyond the scope of what we ought to be dealing 

with, making it a felony for somebody to be dealing with chickens 

and dogs. And whether or not I feel sorry for the chickens and dogs 

is immaterial. It is a stretch to say we are going to make a felony 

out of this. You know, it is against the law, used to be against the 

law in Texas to pick pecans off an interstate highway. That could 

be argued to involve interstate commerce. Are we going to make 

picking pecans off interstate highways a felony? At some point in 

time we have to be serious about that. 

Mr. GREEN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CARTER. I yield back my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? Without objection, the Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute 

laid down as the base text is adopted. A reporting quorum is 

present. 

The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 4264 

favorably, as amended. All in favor will say aye. Opposed no. The 

ayes appear to have it. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 

19 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A recorded vote will be ordered. All 

those in favor of reporting the bill, H.R. 4264, favorably, as amended, will as your names are called answer aye. Those opposed no, 

and the Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK.Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble votes aye. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly votes aye. 

Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot votes aye. 

Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins votes no. 

Mr. Cannon. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus. 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus votes no. 

Mr. Hostettler. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler votes no. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green votes aye. 

Mr. Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller votes aye. 

Ms. Hart. 

Ms. HART. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Hart votes aye. 

Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake votes no. 

Mr. Pence. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes votes aye. 

Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King votes no. 

Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carter votes no. 

20 

Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes no. 

Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Blackburn votes aye. 

Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers votes aye. 

Mr. Berman. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott votes aye. 

Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt votes no. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Pass. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee passes. 

Ms. Waters. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Pass. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan passes. 

Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Pass. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt passes. 

Mr. Wexler. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Baldwin. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK.Mr. Schiff. 

[no response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez votes aye. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman votes aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Members in the chamber who wish 

to cast or change their votes? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. How am I recorded, Mr. Chairman? 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee is recorded as a 

pass. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. 

21 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? If not—the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. It all counts the same whether there 

is conviction or not. 

Further Members who wish to cast or change their votes. Gentleman—other gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to join my distinguished 

colleague from Massachusetts in voting aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Anybody else? Gentlewoman from 

California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 18 ayes and 8 noes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The motion to report favorably is 

agreed to. Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to 

the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a 

substitute, incorporating the amendment here today. 

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to 

conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is 

directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and all 

Members will be given 2 days as provided by the House rules in 

which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority 

views. 

Æ