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

98–179 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–764

ANIMAL RIGHTS: ACTIVISM VS. CRIMINALITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 18, 2004

Serial No. J–108–76

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 67

WITNESSES 

Blum, Jonathan, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, Yum! Brands, Louisville, Kentucky ...................................................................................................... 11

Green, William, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, California ................................................................................. 9

Lewis, John E., Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. ........ 2

Scott, McGregor W., U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of California, Sacramento, California .............................................................................................. 5

Zola, Stuart M., Director, Yerkes National Primate Research Laboratory, 

Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of the National Association 

for Biomedical Research ...................................................................................... 13

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of John Lewis to questions submitted by Senator Leahy .................. 23

Responses of McGregor Scott to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ........... 26

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Blum, Jonathan, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, Yum! Brands, Louisville, Kentucky, prepared statement .................................................................. 30

Green, William, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, California, prepared statement .............................................. 39

Human Society of the United States, Wayne Pacell, Chief Executive Officer, 

Washington, D.C., letter and attachment .......................................................... 64

Lewis, John E., Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 70

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Lisa Lange, Vice President 

of Communications, Norfolk, Virginia, statement and attachments ............... 77

Scott, McGregor W., U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of California, Sacramento, California, prepared statement ........................................................... 130

Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, Alabama, article and attachment ...................................................................................................................... 137

Zola, Stuart M., Director, Yerkes National Primate Research Laboratory, 

Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of the National Association 

for Biomedical Research ...................................................................................... 147

(1)

ANIMAL RIGHTS: ACTIVISM VS. CRIMINALITY 

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Hatch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Chairman HATCH. Good morning. I want to thank everybody for 

joining us today to examine the issue of when legitimate animal 

rights activism crosses over into illegal criminal acts. We have 

some very distinguished panelists with us today and we look forward to hearing from them. 

As everyone in this room is very well aware, the right to demonstrate, to protest and to make your voice heard is as deeply embedded in the American political fabric as is any other right that 

we collectively hold dear. We cannot and we will not violate that 

right. However, where political activism breaches peaceful protest 

and dives head-first into criminal conduct, we can, should and will 

use every mechanism available to prosecute the individuals responsible. 

One area where it is abundantly clear that fringe activists have 

resorted to criminal conduct is where academic and commercial enterprises are conducting legitimate animal testing. In recent years, 

some radical activist groups have gone well beyond what any reasonably-minded person would consider legitimate protest. 

Their tactics include vandalizing and pipe-bombing research facilities, credit card fraud, threatening employees of businesses and 

research companies, terrorizing children of employees, and posting 

death threats against employees, as well as employees’ names, addresses and phone numbers, on the Internet. 

These extremists target researchers, farmers, circuses and other 

lawful, productive and beneficial organizations. There have been 

numerous bombings and vandalisms against farmers in my home 

State of Utah. A mink breeders’ co-op in Murray, Utah, has been 

attacked and fire-bombed. The farmers’ names, addresses and 

phone numbers have been posted on the Internet, together with 

complete instructions on how to build bombs and how to cover up 

any trace of the crime. 

2

For instance, the instructions on how to make milk jug fire 

bombs came with this caution, quote, ‘‘Arson is a big-time felony, 

so wear gloves and old clothes you can throw away throughout the 

entire process, and be very careful not to leave a single shred of 

evidence,’’ unquote. Now, that is shocking, to say the least. 

Additionally, as most of you know, I have long been devoted to 

health-related issues. These actors target what could be life-saving 

research. When research laboratories and university researchers 

are targeted and attacked, the ones who lose most are those who 

are living with a disease or who are watching a loved one struggling with a devastating illness. 

Those who target and attack peaceful organizations and individuals do not legitimately advance their cause and promise no breakthroughs to society. Instead, they only promote a grave threat to 

the well-being and advancement of mankind. 

What is particularly disturbing about these egregious tactics is 

that they are not isolated instances carried out by a few persons 

acting alone. Instead, they are part of a broad, carefully-orchestrated and coordinated effort to threaten, terrorize and ultimately 

shut down lawful enterprises by systematically targeting their employees and other persons or entities who do business with those 

lawful enterprises. 

Our task here today is to help identify and show the line that 

distinguishes lawful expression and protest from criminal behavior. 

Again, I appreciate everyone taking time to be with us today. We 

will hear from two panels of witnesses. On our first will be Mr. 

McGregor, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, 

and Deputy Assistant Director for Domestic Terrorism from the 

FBI, Mr. John Lewis. 

We welcome both of you here. We are grateful that you would 

take time to come and we look forward to hearing from both of you. 

On our second panel is William Green, general counsel of the 

Chiron Corporation; Mr. Jonathan Blum, from Yum! Industries, the 

parent company of Kentucky Fried Chicken; and Dr. Stuart Zola 

from Emory University. So we look forward to hearing from the 

three of you as well. 

We will submit all of the full statements for the record and if you 

could limit your opening remarks to 5 minutes, we will then have 

enough time for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a submission for the record.] 

So let’s first begin with you, Mr. Scott. Is that the way we are 

going to go? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it is okay with you, Mr. 

Lewis will lead off. 

Chairman HATCH. Okay. We will go with Mr. Lewis first and 

then go to Mr. Scott. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. LEWIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning, Chairman Hatch and members of the 

Committee. I am pleased to appear before you and discuss the 

3

threat posed by animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists in this 

country and related difficulties in addressing this crime problem. 

During the past several years, special-interest extremism as 

characterized by the Animal Liberation Front, or ALF, the Earth 

Liberation Front, or ELF, and related extremists has emerged as 

a serious domestic threat. The FBI estimates that the ALF and 

ELF and related groups have committed more than 1,100 criminal 

acts in the United States since 1976, and over half of them in the 

last 8 years resulting in approximately $110 million in damages. 

The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970’s, is a 

loosely organized extremist movement committed to ending the 

abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of ALF 

began its operations in the late 1970’s. Individuals become members of ALF by engaging in direct action against companies or individuals who, in their view, utilize animals for research or economic 

gain, or do some manner of business with those companies or individuals. 

Direct action generally occurs in the form of criminal activity designed to cause economic loss or to destroy the victim’s company, 

operations or property. These efforts have broadened to include a 

multinational campaign of harassment, intimidation and coercion 

against animal testing companies and any companies or individuals 

doing business with those targeted companies. 

The targeting of secondary companies typically takes the form of 

harassment of employees and interference with normal business 

operations under the threat of escalating tactics or violence. The 

harassment is designed to inflict increasing economic damage until 

the company terminates its business relationship with the principal 

target. 

The best example of this trend involves Great Britain’s Stop 

Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or SHAC, organization, a more organized sub-group within the extremist animal rights movement. 

SHAC has waged a sustained campaign against Huntingdon Life 

Sciences and any companies with which HLS conducts business. 

Investigation of SHAC-related criminal activity has revealed a 

pattern of vandalism, arsons, animal releases, harassing telephone 

calls, threats and attempts to disrupt business activity of not only 

HLS, but all of the companies doing business with HLS. Among 

many others, these companies include Bank of America, Marsh 

USA, Deloitte and Touche, and HLS investors such as Stephens, 

Incorporated, all of which, and more, have since terminated their 

business relationships with HLS. 

In recent years, ALF and ELF have become one of the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States. Beginning in 

2002, their operational philosophy has been overshadowed by an 

escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics. Individuals within the 

movement have discussed actively targeting food producers, biomedical researchers and law enforcement with physical harm. More 

disturbing is the use of improvised explosive devices against consumer product testing companies, accompanied by threats of larger 

bombings and potential assassinations. 

In addition to the upswing in violent rhetoric and tactics, new 

trends have emerged in the ecoterrorist movement and include a 

greater frequency of attacks in more populated areas, targeting of 

4

sports utility vehicles and arsons of new construction homes or 

commercial properties. It is believed these trends will persist as extremists within the environmental movement continue to fight 

what they perceive as greater encroachment of human society on 

the natural world. 

The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a limited 

number of arrests of individuals alleged to have perpetrated acts 

of animal rights extremism or ecoterrorism in the past year. These 

few successes are indicative of how the FBI’s efforts are hampered 

by a lack of applicable Federal criminal statutes. 

While it is a relatively simple matter to prosecute extremists responsible for arsons or the use of explosive devices, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to address an organized campaign of lowlevel criminal activity such as what is exhibited by SHAC. 

To address the overall problem presented by SHAC and related 

activity claimed by ALF, the FBI and its partners in the United 

States Attorneys’ offices nationwide have attempted to use the animal enterprise terrorism statute, with just one conviction since this 

statute’s passage in 1992. While the statute intended to provide a 

framework for the prosecution of individuals involved in animal 

rights extremism, it does not reach many of the criminal activities 

engaged in by SHAC in furtherance of its overall objective of shutting down Huntingdon Life Sciences. 

My colleague here today, United States Attorney Greg Scott from 

the Eastern District of California, will speak in greater detail on 

the shortcomings of the AET statute, along with proposed amendments. SHAC members are typically quite conversant in the elements of the AET statute, and appear to engage in conduct that, 

while criminal, would not result in significant, particularly Federal, 

prosecution. 

Today, more than 35 FBI field offices have over 190 pending investigations associated with ALF and/or ELF activities. Despite our 

best efforts, additional tools are needed to effectively impact animal 

rights extremism and ecoterrorism. Extremist movements such as 

ALF and ELF present unique challenges. They exhibit remarkable 

levels of security awareness and are typically very knowledgeable 

of law enforcement techniques, as well as the limitations imposed 

on law enforcement. 

In conclusion, the FBI’s investigation of animal rights extremists 

and ecoterrorism matters is our highest domestic terrorism investigative priority. The FBI and our law enforcement partners will 

continue to address the difficult and unique challenges posed by 

animal rights extremists and ecoterrorists. 

Chairman Hatch and members of the Committee, this concludes 

my prepared remarks, and I would like to express my appreciation 

for your consideration of this important issue and look forward to 

responding to any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Lewis. We appreciate 

you being here and appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. Scott, we will turn to you. 

5

STATEMENT OF MCGREGOR W. SCOTT, U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SCOTT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have 

the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the threat 

posed by animal enterprise terrorism and ecoterrorism, the efforts 

by the Department of Justice to meet this threat, and the Department’s proposals for how we can better address this threat. 

The difficulty and hardship in investigating and prosecuting 

these types of offenses cannot be overestimated. In my own district, 

in the late 1980’s, the University of California at Davis was constructing a new veterinary medicine school which was burned to 

the ground by ALF advocates. Just a few years ago, we had a BLM 

wild horse/burro facility in rural Modoc County burned to the 

ground using incendiary devices. We have not been able to successfully prosecute anyone in either of those instances. 

One of the principal difficulties in prosecuting these cases is the 

inadequate scope of 18 U.S.C. Section 43, which makes it a crime 

to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or use the mail for the 

purpose of causing damage to an animal enterprise. The current 

animal enterprise terrorism statute is insufficient to address the 

threat posed by terrorist acts committed against research laboratories, businesses and other entities that use animals. 

At present, the statute applies only when there is, quote, ‘‘physical disruption,’’ end quote, to the functioning of the enterprise that 

results in damage to or loss of property. As Mr. Lewis just told you, 

enterprises, however, have been harmed economically by threats, 

coercion and other methods of intimidation often directed at employees, customers or vendors of animal enterprise that do not fall 

within the existing criminal prohibition. 

For example, as was referenced by Mr. Lewis, ALF’s Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Campaign has targeted an animal testing 

company called Huntingdon Life Sciences. ALF’s strategy seems to 

include not only attacks on Huntingdon itself, including damaging 

Huntingdon property and the homes of Huntingdon employees, but 

has also included attacks or threats against Huntingdon’s insurance carrier, banker and even companies that merely trade Huntingdon stock. 

Another example of ALF targeting a secondary or collateral entity is the recent bombing of the Shaklee Corporation, a California 

biotech firm. Even though Shaklee is generally considered to be a 

relatively animal-friendly company, its associations with other companies, including Huntingdon, has made it a target. 

While animal terrorists are increasingly targeting not only animal enterprises themselves, such as research facilities and companies that engage in animal testing, but also anyone who is believed 

to be engaged in the provision of services to such animal enterprises, Federal law does not currently equip the Department with 

the necessary tools to effectively prosecute the perpetrators of such 

conduct. 

The Department therefore supports amending the animal enterprise terrorism statute to prohibit the use of threats, vandalism, 

property damage, trespass, persistent and harassing communications, intimidation or coercion in order to cause economic disruption to an animal enterprise when those crimes are part of a larger 

6

plan or conspiracy to cause economic disruption to an animal enterprise. 

This new offense is needed to address unambiguously harassing 

and threatening conduct directed at animal enterprises, as well as 

their employees, customers or vendors, conduct that currently 

causes substantial economic harm. 

Additionally, the current penalties for those who violate the animal enterprise terrorism statute are inadequate and may fail to 

deter much of the criminal conduct prohibited by current law. For 

example, in the absence of death or serious bodily injury, those who 

perpetrate animal enterprise terrorism are now eligible for a maximum of 3 years in prison under the statute. In many cases, however, such a penalty does not reflect the gravity of the offense, and 

the Department therefore supports increasing the existing penalties for animal enterprise terrorism in those cases where terrorists cause substantial economic damage. If an animal terrorist, for 

example, causes millions of dollars in economic damage to an enterprise, he or she should be eligible for more than 3 years’ imprisonment. 

Finally, the Department supports adding the animal enterprise 

terrorism statute as a predicate for electronic surveillance and 

monitoring. Law enforcement agents currently possess the authority to conduct electronic surveillance by petitioning a Federal district court judge for a wiretap order in the investigation of many 

terrorism crimes and ordinary non-terrorism crimes such as drug 

crimes, mail fraud and passport fraud. 

However, current law does not allow investigators to conduct 

electronic surveillance when investigating animal enterprise terrorism. Such surveillance would be helpful in preventing this type 

of terrorism and it should be available when investigators have 

probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has 

committed or is about to commit a violation of the animal enterprise terrorism statute and all other reasonable means of investigation have been exhausted. Given the serious and often violent nature of animal enterprise terrorism, the Department urges Congress to correct this deficiency in current law. 

In conclusion, animal terrorism and ecoterrorism pose a serious 

threat to the safety and security of our fellow citizens. Combatting 

this threat is a priority for the Department of Justice and in order 

to win this battle, Federal prosecutors must have every available 

tool to effectively prosecute this criminal activity. 

As always, the Department stands ready to work with Congress 

to ensure that our efforts are successful. In particular, the Department looks forward to working with this Committee in the weeks 

and months ahead to improve the animal enterprise terrorism statute. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very important topic and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Scott. 

We will, without objection, put the statement of Senator Leahy 

into the record immediately following my opening statement. 

7

Now, let me just ask both of you this question. Do you have the 

tools—you have indicated here you may not have all the tools, but 

let me just ask it in this way—do you have the tools under current 

law to combat illegal activities directed toward research institutions and companies engaged in or supporting medical innovation? 

If not, would you care to list for us what additional tools you would 

like this Committee to try and provide for you? 

Mr. LEWIS. Senator, we have no problem addressing investigations that involve criminal activity such as arson and explosives, 

use of explosives. We rely on other statutes, frankly, than the animal enterprise terrorism statute to address those types of cases. 

In this particular arena, when we are dealing with a whole range 

of activity that does have economic impact—things that include implied or veiled threats, office visits, office invasion in the form of 

blockades, surveillance of employees, posting employee information 

on the Internet, vandalism, that kind of thing—these are not covered at present by the animal enterprise statute and are therefore 

outside the scope of what we would be able to charge and bring to 

the U.S. Attorney’s office. It is those types of things that are aimed 

at companies such as Huntingdon Life Sciences or secondary companies that work with them that we would like to see brought into 

the existing statute. 

Chairman HATCH. As Mr. Scott has suggested here, would the 

addition of Title III wiretap authority to the Animal Enterprise 

Protection Act—that is Title 18 U.S.C. Section 43—would that be 

helpful to the FBI in investigating these particular matters? 

Mr. LEWIS. There is no question that Title III authority would 

greatly assist us in these cases. Right now, we cannot apply it. It 

is not a predicate offense. If we could have that changed, the short 

answer to your question is it would be a powerful tool in helping 

us through these investigations. 

Chairman HATCH. Can you live without that tool and still get 

these investigations done? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I think the trigger on the wiretap mechanism 

and its availability to law enforcement is that all other reasonable 

means of investigation have been exhausted before we apply to a 

Federal district court judge for that authority. So by its very nature, the statute would be limited to those circumstances where we 

have used every other tool available to us and, by resort, we are 

having to go to this mechanism. 

Chairman HATCH. Have either of you seen coordination between 

extremist groups located within the United States and other extremist groups from other countries? 

Mr. LEWIS. Sir, there is coordination to the extent that there is 

dialogue going back and forth, in addition to the flow of dollars 

back and forth between Great Britain and the United States. 

SHAC USA or Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty here in the United 

States grew out of the same organization that exists in Great Britain. We know that there is communication going back and forth. 

We know that there is travel of principals going back and forth 

and, as I said, the flow of dollars. 

If I may, on the last question that you asked, I will also tell you 

that we have learned through our investigations that there is a 

code of conduct within this movement that spells out no cooperaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:01 Feb 10, 2005 Jkt 098179 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98179.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

tion with law enforcement if you are caught. In fact, they have a 

name for it; they call it the no-compromise policy. 

The fact of the matter is most of the individuals that we confront 

in these investigations—when they are confronted, they simply 

don’t cooperate. Getting back to your question on Title III authority, it would be extremely helpful, if we can’t get cooperation from 

subjects, to be able to use Title III to tie us into other subjects. 

Chairman HATCH. Many of the acts committed by these extremists, it would seem to me, already violate State laws. Now, are 

these State laws adequate to combat and prosecute, if you will, 

these animal terrorists? 

Mr. SCOTT. Senator, I was a local prosecutor, to include elected 

district attorney, for a total of 14 years. So I am very sensitive to 

the issue of the federalization of what have historically been local 

or State crimes. 

I think what makes this particular area different is that these 

are not random, isolated acts of vandalism or graffiti or assaults 

or threats. This is all part of a coherent plan or strategy that oftentimes is a national strategy or conspiracy. 

What the Department would propose is that when this series of 

illegal acts that would otherwise oftentimes only constitute misdemeanor conduct is part of a larger plan or conspiracy that is directed to affect the economic opportunities of a legitimate business, 

then there is a Federal aspect to that. 

The other part of it that is significant is that as a local prosecutor in California and now as a United States Attorney, the investigative tool of the Federal grand jury is tremendous in relation 

to what is available to local prosecutors, at least in California. And 

the ability to call witnesses and question witnesses and suspects 

and material witnesses in front of the Federal grand jury and to 

subpoena documents—all those kinds of things are a tremendous 

tool that is not available to local prosecutors. 

The final point I would make is that if a local district attorney 

in a county in far northern California sees a series of what he or 

she would consider to be petty acts of vandalism, and a prosecutor 

in southern Oregon sees the same thing without knowing that the 

other is going, there isn’t that connection to establish the wider 

plan. So they may not take the cases as seriously as they should 

be, whereas with the Federal ability to look at it globally, we have 

the ability to really make a determination of how significant the 

conduct is. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me ask you, what effect does the targeting 

of secondary companies not meeting the statutory definition of, 

quote, ‘‘animal enterprise,’’ unquote, under 18 U.S.C. 43, have on 

the FBI’s ability to investigate and obtain prosecution of animal 

rights extremists who commit criminal acts against those companies? 

Mr. LEWIS. Sir, I believe I heard almost all of your question. 

There is a sustained campaign being waged here in this country by 

SHAC on what we call secondary or tertiary companies. In fact, as 

many as 100 companies since 2000 have stopped doing business 

with Huntingdon Life Sciences because of these attacks. 

If we cannot bring prosecution against individuals who are involved in a variety of lower-level criminal activity against these 

9

secondary companies, then we lose an opportunity to arrest subjects, hopefully interrogate subjects, bring subjects to the U.S. Attorney’s office for further prosecution and hopefully elicit some sort 

of cooperation. That has long been one tool in our bag for all other 

types of investigations, the power of prosecution and what it does 

in terms of bringing cooperation on the part of some people. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, I appreciate your testimony here today. 

This is an important hearing because it is important for us to let 

the American people know that these groups are out there and that 

they are getting away with some very terrible acts and that we 

have got to do more to give the law strength to be able to apprehend them and go after them. 

I think both of you testifying here today is very important, so we 

appreciate you coming. Thanks so much. 

We will turn to our second panel: William Green, senior vice 

president and general counsel of Chiron Corporation; Jonathan 

Blum, senior vice president of government affairs at Yum! Brands; 

and Dr. Stuart Zola, the director of the Yerkes Primate Center at 

Emory University. 

Let’s start with you, Mr. Green, first. Mr. Green, we will go to 

you, and them Mr. Blum and then Mr. Zola. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GREEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CHIRON CORPORATION, 

EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today on behalf of 

Chiron Corporation. I must also say, however, that it is not really 

a pleasure testifying before this Committee in a circumstance 

where both personally and institutionally we are in the cross-hairs 

of a violent and persistent campaign of intimidation and harassment against our employees and ourselves, for reasons that are 

only vaguely related to our current business. 

The interesting dynamic that is occurring in animal terrorism, 

exemplified by the SHAC attacks on tertiary targets, is that it is 

falling below the radar screen of existing regulation, and existing 

tools of law enforcement. The local, State and Federal level are essentially inadequate to deal with the perverse effects of this coercion. 

There are two issues that I would like to have you focus on as 

I testify today. The first is that this activity is increasingly 

targetting businesses that are not themselves animal enterprises, 

but are normal players in the chain of commerce that have very little incentive to resist the effect of intimidation on their employees. 

Therefore, their first act and their obvious act is to withdraw from 

relationships with the real target of the harassment. 

Second, this is truly a national and international activity carefully coordinated and orchestrated through the use of the Internet. 

The combination of these two factors put this activity beyond the 

scope of effective regulation by existing tools. 

Let me take a minute to talk about Chiron and the threat that 

we faced. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Chiron is biotechnology 

company. We are in the business of developing new treatments and 

preventions for disease. We are active in fighting cancer. We preVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:01 Feb 10, 2005 Jkt 098179 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98179.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
10

vent influenza. We have products on the market for cystic fibrosis 

and multiple sclerosis. 

We will continue to use animals because science requires testing 

of all these therapeutic and preventive products before they can be 

used commercially. Before you can engage in human testing, you 

must test these rationally in appropriate animal models. The law 

requires this, the science requires this. 

Our own animal testing program is carefully accredited and regulated, and we try to operate it in the best state-of-the-art means. 

But because of a historical connection that we have had with Huntingdon Life Sciences, we are a tertiary target for the harassment 

campaign that is now underway. 

That campaign has been underway against us for about 13 

months in the United States and about 2 1/2 years in the United 

Kingdom and the Netherlands. Our employees have been the target 

of violent and persistent campaigns by animal extremists. I would 

like to provide just a couple of highlights of that and see if I can 

call together the way these campaign are coordinated with four 

points. 

My written testimony contains a number of examples of campaigns and tactics used against Chiron, but I would like to have 

you focus on four. The first is home visits. Masked people arrive 

at the homes of low-level employees in the middle of the night with 

bull horns and screech alarms. In one case, in our company, they 

smeared animal feces on the doorsteps of employees. In another 

case, they left butyric acid on the front door. Butyric acid creates 

the strong aroma similar to that emitted by vomit. 

In my personal case, there have been four home visits, none of 

them really more than petty, prank-like vandalism. But when combined with the other activities of SHAC against us, they present a 

fairly pervasive and intimidating result for me and for my family. 

The most pronounced of these other activities, of course, is bombing. Two bombs went off on our campus on August 28, 2003, at 

about two o’clock in the morning. These bombs were set to go off 

some minutes apart. The goal of setting off two bombs some minutes apart is fairly obviously. They were targetting the first responders who came to investigate the first bomb blast. 

About 30 days after the bombing of our site, a third bomb went 

off at the Shaklee Company, also in the Bay area of California. At 

about the same time as the Shaklee blast, the SHAC website in the 

United States published the following statement from what is 

called the Revolutionary Cells, and I quote, ‘‘Hey, Sean Lance’’—

our chairman—‘‘and the rest of the Chiron team, how are you 

sleeping? You never know when your house, your car even, might 

go boom. Who knows? That new car in the parking lot may be 

packed with explosives, or maybe it will be a shot in the dark.’’ If 

this isn’t intimidation by threatening death by use of the Internet, 

I don’t know what is. 

Three weeks after this e-mail posting on the Internet threatening 

death to our chairman, Sean Lance, SHAC invaded the college 

campus where my freshman daughter is a student and leafletted 

the campus with pictures of her, urging other students to harass 

and intimidate here and the student organizations of which she is 

11

a member. She was 3,000 miles from her mother and 3,000 miles 

from me, and I must say this wasn’t pleasant. 

If you consider all of these activities in totality, what we have is 

an international conspiracy to use new tools that are not effectively 

regulated by law enforcement. The ideal solution in my mind would 

be a comprehensive amendment of the Hobbs Act. If that is not 

possible, at a minimum, this year we need to have the Animal Terrorism Act amended to make it effective against the kind of lowlevel terrorism and global Internet coordination that is now intimidating companies throughout the United States, and for that matter Western Europe. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is the end of my prepared remarks. I am happy to respond to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. We appreciate it and, like I 

say, we will put all the prepared remarks in the record as though 

fully given. 

Mr. Blum. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BLUM, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, YUM! BRANDS, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 

Mr. BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you 

for having us here today to bring attention to this important matter. I am here to talk with you about a corporate campaign that 

has been waged against KFC, one of our companies, for the last 3 

years. 

What I would like to do is outline how PETA, who has brought 

this corporate campaign against us, has crossed the line of free 

speech and First Amendment protection to what we consider to be 

invasion of privacy and harassment of our executives and their 

families, our neighbors and others in our community. In my view, 

PETA’s campaign has been nothing short of what I would call corporate terrorism. 

As background, PETA has attempted to pressure our company 

into forcing our suppliers to make changes to their processing 

methods. We don’t own any processing companies. Let’s be clear. 

What PETA ultimately wants is a vegetarian or vegan world, no 

consumption of meat, poultry, pork, fish, no leather goods, no dairy 

products—not very likely in our society. 

But since we don’t own any farms or any processing facilities, 

PETA has drawn their attention on KFC and tried to disrupt our 

supply chain and pressure us to force our suppliers to make the 

changes that PETA seeks. We view those changes as impractical, 

unnecessary, unproven and very costly. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if 

we were to implement those changes, the cost to our company 

would exceed $50 million. Our suppliers have told us they will not 

categorically implement the changes that PETA seeks. 

We have studied this matter thoroughly and we are very comfortable with the animal welfare guidelines that our suppliers are 

following. So when we resisted making the changes that PETA 

seeks, they escalated their campaign and moved from rhetoric and 

dialogue to harassment and threats. They have enlisted the help of 

a number of celebrities who are vegetarians. They have spread misVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:01 Feb 10, 2005 Jkt 098179 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98179.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
12

information, come to our restaurants and picketed, boycotted, and 

come to our business meetings, and so forth. 

Mr. Chairman, we are perfectly fine with PETA exercising their 

First Amendment rights and acting within their legal rights, as I 

have just described. But they have stepped over the line and moved 

beyond protected free speech and have resorted to intimidation of 

our executives. 

Let me just be clear. This is not a warm and fuzzy animal protection group; this is not the ASPCA. PETA’s Bruce Friedrich, the 

number two in the organization, has admitted under oath, in a 

court of law, that he told his supporters at a rally that all fast-food 

restaurants should be bombed or exploded and he would say 

alleluia to anyone who perpetrated these crimes. I have submitted 

for the record a transcript of Mr. Friedrich’s remarks. 

Let me give you a few examples of what PETA has done to us 

and why several of us, myself included, have 24-a-day, 7-day-aweek police protection at our homes during frequent periods 

throughout the year. 

Last year, a leader of PETA in Germany threw actor’s blood and 

feathers on our Chairman and CEO as a means to embarrass him 

at a public event, and this was publicized through the news media 

around the world. The perpetrator of that was prosecuted in Germany. 

PETA has published on their website home addresses of a number of our executives, and they have encouraged their 700,000 

members to regularly and frequently send us letters to our homes 

which we receive from all around the world, people telling us to 

stop killing chickens. 

PETA has hired a photographer to take clandestine and secret 

photographs of us with long-distance lenses for the sole purpose of 

putting our faces on billboards across America and in advertisements saying that we are chicken killers. PETA has gone door to 

door in our neighbors harassing our neighbors and our families, 

telling them that we are chicken killers and inhumane, trying to 

make us uncomfortable in our communities. They have also threatened to bring a jumbo television screen to the president of KFC’s 

home to showcase a videotape of chickens being slaughtered to all 

the children in the neighborhood. 

On Halloween, they came to our neighborhood dressed as chickens and handed out trick-or-treats to kids. But instead of candy, 

Mr. Chairman, they handed out videotapes of chickens being 

slaughtered to the children so they could bring those home and 

play them for their parents. 

PETA sent me an e-mail similar to the one that they sent to 

Chiron, or an organization sent to Chiron, apparently, and told me 

I shouldn’t sleep easy at night. PETA has been making harassing 

phone calls to our board of directors and sending them harassing 

letters. They found our CEO’s mother in the Midwest and sent her 

a letter and called her; the same thing with the president of KFC’s 

parents and the CEO’s sister. 

They have gone to the church where a number of our employees 

attend and have disrupted services and marched in front with banners and slogans, and so forth. They have also enlisted a celebrity 

to come and say to me that they are going to bring 5,000 people 

13

to my front door and harass us through intimidation. They were arrested for trespassing on our property. 

I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but for the sake of time let 

me just say that any one of these individual actions probably is not 

enough to raise concern. But when you string them all together 

over a 3-year period, and dozens and dozens more, I hope you 

would agree that this campaign of harassment and intimidation 

gives rise to modifying the criminal code. We hope that you can do 

something about this by making it a criminal act for any animal 

rights activist to personally harass or intimidate an executive or 

cause a business disruption in the way PETA has done to us. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would also urge Congress to consider eliminating PETA’s tax-free status, as they benefit from tax 

laws designed to help not-for-profit organizations, and we don’t 

think that is appropriate. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blum appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Blum. 

Mr. Zola. 

STATEMENT OF STUART M. ZOLA, DIRECTOR, YERKES NATIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH LABORATORY, EMORY UNIVERSITY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH 

Mr. ZOLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing 

me to testify today and for conducting this hearing on the threat 

posed by animal rights extremists. 

I am the director of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, one of eight NIH-sponsored research facilities in this country. 

We are located in Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, where I 

am also a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and a research career scientist with the Veterans Administration. 

I am here today testifying on behalf of the National Association 

for Biomedical Research, the NABR. With 300 institutional members, the NABR is the only national non-profit organization dedicated solely to advocating sound public policy that recognizes the 

vital role of humane animal use in biomedical research, in higher 

education and in product safety testing. 

In addition to my role as director at Yerkes, I am also a 

neuroscientist and my work involves studying the brain and memory and how memory works, what parts of the brain are important 

for memory, what happens when things go wrong, and hopefully 

how we may be able to fix things when they do go wrong. 

Much of what we have learned thus far about how the human 

brain works in terms of memory has really come from research 

with animals. Because we have been able to develop animal models 

for a number of different kinds of human diseases, we can study 

these diseases in the laboratory in a very systematic way, in ways 

that we cannot do with humans. 

For example, in terms of my own field, we have developed animal 

models now that have abnormal deposits of protein. This is an abnormal protein that occurs in Alzheimer’s disease and is indeed the 

hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. Because we have these animal 

14

models available to us now, there is a lot of promise in being able 

to understand and treat Alzheimer’s disease in ways that we 

haven’t had available to us before. 

Indeed, there are a number of individuals at Yerkes and at 

Emory University and at other institutions around the country who 

are working on the possibility of an Alzheimer’s vaccine; that is, we 

now have the possibility of being able to reverse the deposits of 

these plaques, this protein, and in some cases we hope to be able 

to prevent that from even occurring. So animal research for my 

field of memory and for many other fields of medicine really has 

brought us to new dimensions and new areas of possibility. 

Now, I want you to erase what I have just said. Don’t think 

about the fact that we have treatments. Think about having no 

treatments and having no cures and having little hope, and that 

is the outcome if animal extremists have their way. 

Because of the research I do, because I use monkeys to study aspects of memory, I have been a target of animal rights activists for 

many years. When I was at the University of California, before I 

came to Emory, I was the university’s spokesperson for the use of 

animals in research and explaining to the general public why it 

was important to do that. 

Animal extremists labeled me as Vivisector of the Year for many 

years running, and every year they would burn a life-like model of 

me dressed in a lab coat at demonstrations. This was more than 

a veiled threat to me. Mail came to my home with pictures of me 

and my family, with bull’s eye targets superimposed on them, so 

that I would know that they knew about my personal life and 

where I lived. Harassing phone calls were just the normal order of 

the day. 

When I moved to Emory University a couple of years ago, the 

neighborhood where I had just bought a home was flooded with 

propaganda from animal rights activists warning my neighbors 

that a torturer was coming to live in their neighborhood. For the 

first year of our residency there, we received dozens and dozens of 

unauthorized magazine subscriptions and book club memberships 

and gifts and other kinds of things that were sent to us as harassment in my name by the animal rights activists. Not only that, but 

they did this to my colleagues in my name, as well, and sent them 

gift subscriptions from me. 

For the concern of safety for me, Emory University installed and 

continues to pay for and support an alarm system in my home. The 

university, in collaboration with the university police and our local 

community police, keeps a close watch on my home and neighborhood at all times. 

Others of my colleagues have faced harassment as well, including 

having pictures of their children appear on animal extremist Web 

pages, with the suggestion that these children ought to be treated 

no differently than animals in research. The threats are focused in 

other ways as well, what is referred to as third-party threats, and 

we have heard a lot of this already this morning. 

In terms of our own experience, a contractor who was doing work 

for Yerkes was recently the target of what is referred to as a denial 

of service. That is an action by the animal extremists who use sophisticated computer-driven telephone dialing programs to flood 

15

the lines of this business and effectively block access to the company’s legitimate customers. 

If this continues, the animal extremists will have won and the 

loser will be humanity. We can’t allow this to happen. Animal extremists claim that it is unethical to do animal research, but everything that we know and everything that we still have to learn in 

terms of biomedical research makes it just the opposite. It is unethical to not do animal research. 

Your grandchildren and my grandchildren have the promise of 

growing up with much less disease in this world now, and our own 

children even today have the promise of being able to face old age 

gracefully and with a lot more dignity as these new developments 

come about. Animal research plays a large part in those promises 

and being able to fulfill those promises. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify 

and for making these points about the importance of holding at bey 

where animal activists have come to and not allowing them to 

progress. I am happy to answer any questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zola appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Zola. 

Mr. Green, your statement briefly touches on similar activities 

done in the UK, or the United Kingdom. Can you provide some further insight to the Committee with regard to the UK’s governmental response to these types of activities? 

Mr. GREEN. We have had employees harassed in the UK and in 

the Netherlands for two-and-a-half years. The UK government has 

been much more effective than local or Federal Government agencies in the United States in putting together a program that permits private companies to obtain judicial protection for their employees. 

Part of that is an outgrowth of the British government’s concern 

about the erosion of structural and infrastructural support for Huntingdon that caused the government to be more supportive of protective mechanisms. The same sorts of harassing activities that 

have occurred in the United States have occurred in Europe, both 

at our employees’ homes and at our office sites. 

Chairman HATCH. Some of the episodes you discuss appear to be 

violations of State laws, and if that is so, why are they not adequate in taking care of the problems and why do you need Federal 

laws to resolve this? 

Mr. GREEN. A combination of two factors, Senator. The first is 

that most of these activities fall below the radar screen of effective 

enforcement of local law. Local law enforcement, using tools such 

as disturbance of the peace or vandalism and the like, are not 

going to be interested in pursuing broader solutions. 

For example, the four home visits that occurred in my hometown 

were the only four events that happened in 13 months in the city 

in which I live. While the city police and the city government is 

more than interested in protecting its citizens, four small, pranklike matters in isolation is not going to present a case that is going 

to be prosecutable by local authorities. 

However, when you aggregate this activity, and particularly you 

aggregate it with the orchestration and coordination globally of an 

16

Internet-driven and Internet-empowered communication mechanism, you have a tool that is beyond the scope of local or State law 

enforcement. 

Chairman HATCH. So you are in agreement with the prior panel 

that we need to provide law enforcement with greater tools in order 

to apprehend and prosecute these animal extremists who threaten, 

intimidate and harass your employees as well as other employees 

throughout the country? 

Mr. GREEN. I am, Senator Hatch, yes. 

Chairman HATCH. Now, you believe new legislation is needed to 

address the issues raised by your testimony. Do you believe that 

Congress can go further in this area of law without imposing restrictions on the First Amendment? 

Mr. GREEN. Senator, I don’t believe that any of the activities that 

I have outlined today reflect protected speech. I am a personal believer in upholding First Amendment protections, and I am sure 

the judicial system would be able to do that. 

What the current activity by the animal extremists does is create 

a fabric of low-level criminal behavior that falls below the enforcement interest and possibly the jurisdictional interest of the applicable existing law enforcement regimes, local, State and Federal. 

In my mind, we need to have an overarching regulatory regime 

by amending the criminal code at the Federal level that permits 

both the aggregating of the damages done by these low-level activities and an effective mechanism for dealing with the coordination 

device that occurs through the use of the Internet to schedule and 

orchestrate these activities simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions. 

Our experience in the United States, Mr. Senator, has been simultaneous attacks in California, Washington, New Jersey, coordinated with the activities in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. So it is essentially a global problem. 

Chairman HATCH. Mr. Blum, let me turn to you. We have heard 

from other witnesses who work in fields that are not particularly 

household names, but your company almost everybody knows. People know names such as KFC, Taco Bell and others. These are 

household words. 

You state in your testimony that extremists have threatened you, 

harassed others and distributed videotapes of chickens being 

slaughtered to children on Halloween. In your view, is current Federal and State law inadequate to provide you and those similarly 

situated with protection, and does it provide any punishment for 

those who carry out these outrageous acts? 

Mr. BLUM. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would concur with Mr. Green 

and say that any one of these individual incidents could be considered a prank, and when you string them together, in the aggregate, 

that is where you have what we would consider corporate terrorism. 

Let me give you an example. Mr. Friedrich, who trespassed on 

our property on Christmas Eve to disrupt our holiday, was cited for 

arrest. He was brought to criminal prosecution and last week a 

jury convicted him. The fine, Mr. Chairman, was a $25 fine. Quite 

frankly, that is not going to be a deterrent to the PETA organizaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:01 Feb 10, 2005 Jkt 098179 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98179.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
17

tion to prevent them from conducting the type of activity that they 

do. 

Besides that, there are 699,999 other members of the PETA organization who can continue on with this campaign of corporate terrorism. So I would like to see the criminal code expanded to include 

harassment, intimidation, invasion of privacy, stepping over the 

line of free speech. We believe in free speech, but when they have 

stepped over it, that is where we would like to see some protection. 

Chairman HATCH. Give us a little understanding of how these 

acts that you describe have affected your company. Have they affected the bottom line? Have they affected your ability to do business? Have they affected your ability to franchise and your ability 

to operate? 

Mr. BLUM. First, they have been a disruption to our executives’ 

time. But above and beyond that, they are trying to coerce us to 

force our suppliers to make changes which would not be in our 

shareholders’ best interest. If we have to incur a $50 million charge 

by modifying the processing facilities, that is just simply not in our 

shareholders’ best interest. 

Chairman HATCH. Even if you did modify them, they would still 

be critical, wouldn’t they? 

Mr. BLUM. They would. They would just raise the bar once again. 

Chairman HATCH. So in other words, you could never really satisfy them as long as you are selling dead chickens? I could say that 

in a little more delicate way. 

Mr. BLUM. Well, that is what we do for a living and we are proud 

of being the world leader in fried chicken. They want a vegetarian 

world. We sell fried chicken. We will never see eye to eye. We respect that, and so long as they stay within the boundaries of the 

law and stay within their First Amendment rights, we are fine 

with that. When they step over the line, that is when we would like 

some protection. 

Chairman HATCH. Mr. Zola, I have been interested in your testimony because I am a great believer in medical research, and I also 

am a great believer that you have to do humane animal testing in 

order to accomplish this research. As everybody knows, a year or 

so ago I came out for embryonic stem cell research, which is also, 

many think, the future of medical research in this country and 

throughout the world. 

Are you aware of extremist targeting companies or other organizations that provide support services to Emory University that 

have been targeted because of their association with your facility, 

and if so, what kind of tactics were used? 

Mr. ZOLA. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your 

support. I know you are a champion of medical research and of the 

kind of work that is involved there. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

Mr. ZOLA. The answer is, yes, we have. As I alluded to in my testimony, for example, we have contractors who are associated with 

the Yerkes Primate Research Center be the victims of one of these 

attacks. 

Now, just in line with my colleagues and the FBI testimony earlier, we could see this attack coming. We knew it was happening 

because it was broadcast on the Internet by the animal rights exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:01 Feb 10, 2005 Jkt 098179 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98179.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
18

tremist Web pages. They even set up a time for when the supporters could download the piece of software they needed to generate this denial of service through their own computers. So we 

knew and could follow it. 

We were linked to the FBI in this, as well, but there was nothing 

they could do in this case because they don’t have the possibilities 

of being able to interfere at that point in time because the rules 

and regulations aren’t in place for being able to do that. So that 

is in many ways the kind of tragedy of this. We actually can see 

it unfolding and we know it is going to happen, and yet we can’t 

do anything to counteract it. 

So we do have several examples of this, and in the testimony 

submitted from NABR several other examples are indicated as 

well. But in terms of Emory, and Yerkes in particular, many of the 

companies that have been associated with us have been the victims 

of this. Some of those companies then decide not to continue their 

relationship with us, and so that creates difficulties for us. We 

have to then go and find other contractors to be able to complete 

the work. 

There is a ripple that goes on and the ripple, Mr. Chairman, is 

even more important in the academic community itself; that is, students and post-doctoral fellows and other individuals, good scientists who would otherwise be doing research involving animals 

and important medical research, are becoming demoralized and 

they decide to move on to other areas that are less troublesome, 

less problematic. 

That really is the goal for the animal activists. The goal is not 

animal welfare. The goal is the abolition of the use of animals in 

research. There is no dividing line there. That is the goal, and that 

is the slow and incremental impact that they are having unless we 

intervene and do something. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, you have indicated in many ways that 

research is affected by these types of activities. Could you give us 

some other illustrations as to how research is affected? I am talking about medical and health care research, in particular, research 

for the benefit of mankind. 

Mr. ZOLA. Yes. 

Chairman HATCH. I notice that Mr. Green’s organization, for instance, is trying to stamp out polio throughout the world and have 

been doing an excellent job. They are also working on some other 

very life-saving remedies and therapies and pharmaceuticals, if you 

will, that could help mankind. 

Tell us a little bit more about how you think this affects medical 

research. 

Mr. ZOLA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. I would 

say there are at least two ways in which the animal extremists 

have had their impact. One is that they drain resources that would 

otherwise be directed toward life-saving biomedical research and 

instead are redirected toward development of regulations and a lot 

of administrative aspects that are put in place by legislation that 

is intended to be directed toward the welfare of animals, but which 

really does nothing more to enhance the welfare of animals. 

As you may know, there are in some cases more regulations associated with the use of animals in research than there are with the 

19

use of human subjects in research. The physical requirements and 

psychological requirements for housing animals and for maintaining animals is extraordinary in terms of its regulations. So the intent was to redirect as much of the resources both in terms of time 

and money as can be done by animal activists, and they have been 

very successful at that. 

The second is what I alluded to earlier, and that is the human 

resources. Those human resources are coming in some cases to conclusion that this is just not the field that they want to be in. So 

individuals who are quite capable and remarkable researchers are 

choosing a course of research that doesn’t involve animals, just because it is easier and safer not to do that. People are feeling threatened, people are feeling demoralized. Graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are choosing a different direction in their careers. 

So much of the kinds of discovery that we know is critical and 

based around animal research is not going to get done in the timely 

way that it would otherwise. In my view, that translates simply to 

lives lost. The outcome of this really is the loss of lives. It means 

that the treatment or the cure or the intervention that would be 

here in 3 months is not going to be here in 3 months, and may 

never be here because of this drain of resources in terms of time 

and energy. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, you have brought that future biomedical 

scientists may diminish in significant numbers if they have to go 

through this kind of harassment. 

Mr. ZOLA. And it is ironic, if I might just add, Mr. Chairman, because we are on the verge now of a tremendous revolution in biomedical research with the aspect of genomics and stem cell research which is going to require the use of animals in a very strong 

and powerful way. 

Chairman HATCH. How widespread are these types of tactics in 

targeting others within the research community? 

Mr. ZOLA. It is quite pervasive. There is no colleague that I know 

of who hasn’t had some impact in some way from the animal rights 

community either by being attacked directly or by having students 

or others affected. 

Chairman HATCH. Or even members of the family. 

Mr. ZOLA. And certainly members of the family, as we said. And 

you also made another point—I think it was you who made it—that 

they are not nearly as concerned about the use of human subjects 

as they are animal subjects. I mean, that seems kind of inconsistent. 

Mr. ZOLA. Sir, the goal, as I say, is not animal welfare; it is not 

human welfare. It is a different political goal in its own right of the 

abolition of the use of animals in research. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, I know very wealthy people who love 

animals and have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to PETA, 

for instance, because they believe that they are really trying to protect animals. Yet, without animal research, we would soon fall behind a lot of other countries and we would fall behind in these lifesaving treatment therapies that are essential for mankind. 

Mr. ZOLA. I believe you are right. If I may make one last point, 

the research that we do helps not just humans; it helps animals. 

When you take your animal to the veterinarian, that treatment 

20

that the veterinarian has come out of animal research, so that animal research really is two-pronged, in a sense. It helps humans, 

but it also is important for animals themselves. So to be opposed 

to it doesn’t make sense. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, I can see people who want to be vegetarians and don’t want to eat Kentucky Fried, or now I understand 

roasted chicken. 

Mr. BLUM. Right. 

Chairman HATCH. When that did that start, the middle of this 

month? 

Mr. BLUM. Very good. You have been watching TV. 

Chairman HATCH. I have been wondering why you haven’t had 

roasted chicken for some of us who can’t eat fried chicken anymore. 

Mr. BLUM. Well, come on in and try it. 

Chairman HATCH. I will. 

Mr. BLUM. I will get you some chicken checks. 

Chairman HATCH. Okay, that will be great. 

Well, let me just say this. This is a serious hearing because there 

are few things as important for the welfare of society as scientific 

research for the benefit of mankind, and it can’t be done without 

animal research, in my opinion. Some of it can, but some of the 

most significant parts cannot be done. Like I say, it is pathetic that 

people don’t realize that and are not nearly as concerned about 

human research. I mean, it saves us the problem of using human 

subjects to try and find out what works and what doesn’t work. 

So I just think that all three of your testimonies have been very 

helpful. There is no excuse for anybody intimidating children, intimidating research scientists and intimidating people in their 

homes. Your home should not be invaded. They should be protected, and I don’t know of many societies where you won’t have 

some sense of peace and tranquility in your own home. 

So I am very concerned about what I am hearing here today and 

we will have to see what we can do to resolve some of these problems. I am also concerned with the criminal activities that are 

going on, and if the Federal Government doesn’t have the laws to 

resolve these problems, then we are going to have to try and find 

ways of giving them that help and that aid and those, to use your 

term, tools to be able to help them to be able to resolve these problems. 

Well, your testimony has been very important today and we will 

certainly take it completely under consideration. 

With that, the Center for Consumer Freedom has written a letter 

directed to me from Richard Berman, who is the executive director. 

Here is what he said: ‘‘Dear Senator Hatch, thank you for holding 

a public hearing to investigate the disturbing trend of animal 

rights activists choosing criminal violence over peaceful protest. To 

add appropriate context to today’s testimony, I would like to share 

some unusual findings that the Center for Consumer Freedom is 

in the process of making public. They highlight the extent to which 

supposedly ‘mainstream’ animal rights charities, many of which 

enjoy Federal tax-exempt status, have an undeniable hand in encouraging and funding violent activity.’’ 

This backs up what you are saying. 

21

‘‘People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, has do- nated over $150,000 to criminal activists, including the terrorist 

Earth Liberation Front’’—that is ELF that has been mentioned 

here—‘‘and individuals jailed for arson, burglary and attempted 

murder. When asked by eight different media outlets to explain the 

purpose of a $1,500 gift to ELF, PETA officers and spokespersons 

gave eight different and contradictory answers. Since 2000, rankand-file PETA activists have been arrested over 80 times for crimes 

committed during PETA protests. Charges include felony obstruction of government property, criminal mischief, assaulting a cabinet official, felony vandalism, performing obscene acts in public, destruction of Federal property and burglary. Last week, PETA vegetarian campaign director Bruce Friedrich was convicted of criminal 

trespass in Kentucky. Friedrich has previously publicly advocated 

‘blowing stuff up and smashing windows’ in order to win ‘animal 

liberation.’ As recently as last year, PETA’s payroll included convicted Animal Liberation Front felon Gary Yourofsky, whom the 

group paid to lecture public school students about strict vegetarianism and animal rights. And PETA’s websites, several of 

which target children, openly advocate vandalism and other illegal 

activity. Despite all of this, PETA maintains its 501(c)(3) Federal 

tax exemption. While the Humane Society of the United States, 

HSUS, is generally less confrontational than PETA, it has its own 

connection to organized violence. Until last year, when the Center 

for Consumer Freedom brought it to light, the HSUS was quietly 

funding the operation of an Internet service which distributed the 

Animal Liberation Front’s official communiques claiming responsibility for criminal activities. HSUS and its $65 million annual income are completely tax-exempt. The case of Daniel Andreas San 

Diego is a chilling story of animal rights terror involving two tenpound shrapnel bombs detonated in 2003 using the same materials 

found at the Oklahoma City blast site. The FBI’s investigation uncovered substantial connections between this Federal fugitive and 

two above-ground groups—California-based In Defense of Animals, 

IDA, and a violent group called SHAC. IDA is a tax-exempt charity. SHAC is in the process of applying for that status. In addition 

to its undeniable connection to the Chiron and Shaklee bombings, 

SHAC has been responsible for car bombings, death threats, physical assaults and countless other acts of intimidation. Substantial 

connections exist between PETA and SHAC, largely flowing 

through the inventively-named Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, or PCRM. PETA’s quasi-medical front group, 

PCRM, has been publicly censured by the American Medical Association for its outrageous misrepresentations of medical science. To 

date, PETA has passed over $1.3 million to PCRM, all of it tax-exempt. PCRM president Dr. Neal Barnard is president of the PETA 

Foundation, the vehicle used to move much of this money. Working 

with the president of SHAC, Bernard has cosigned letters targeting 

biomedical research firms in the U.S. and abroad. Last year, at the 

‘Animal Rights 2003’ national conference, official PCRM spokesman 

Jerry Vlasak publicly advocated the murder of doctors who use animals in their research, saying ‘I don’t think you would have to kill, 

assassinate too many. I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, 

we could save a million, 2 million, 3 million non-human lives.’ 

22

Vlasak reinforced this idea in April, telling a national cable network audience that violence is ‘a morally justifiable solution’ for activists. A disturbing current of violence runs beneath the surface 

of ‘mainstream’ animal rights groups in the United States. And 

some of these tax-exempt charities are provided ‘material support 

or resources’ to groups and individuals whose activities fit the U.S. 

Criminal Code’s definition of ‘domestic terrorism.’’’ 

That is a startling letter and if the facts in this letter are true, 

then there will have to be some action taken against these people 

who are committing these criminal activities. So I am going to caution our law enforcement people to check these all out. If they are 

true, there is no excuse for these people or these organizations having tax-free status in this country, because they certainly would not 

qualify under anybody’s definition of tax-free 501(c)(3) organizations. 

So this hearing is a very important one. We will continue to follow up and, of course, we would appreciate any additional information anybody can send. We also would appreciate arguments on the 

other side, although I don’t want to be inundated with propaganda. 

We would want articles of significance and honesty that would help 

us to understand this better. 

I appreciate the courage of you people and the testimony you 

have brought to us here today. I think what you have gone through 

is just absolutely wrong and we will see what we can do about it. 

With that, we will adjourn until further notice. 

[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

23


98179.001
24


98179.002
25


98179.003
26


98179.004
27


98179.005
28


98179.006
29


98179.007
30


98179.025
31


98179.026
32


98179.027
33


98179.028
34


98179.029
35


98179.030
36


98179.031
37


98179.032
38


98179.033
39


98179.034
40


98179.035
41


98179.036
42


98179.037
43


98179.038
44


98179.039
45


98179.040
46


98179.041
47


98179.042
48


98179.043
49


98179.044
50


98179.045
51


98179.046
52


98179.047
53


98179.048
54


98179.049
55


98179.050
56


98179.051
57


98179.052
58


98179.053
59


98179.054
60


98179.055
61


98179.056
62


98179.057
63


98179.058
64


98179.059
65


98179.060
66


98179.061
67


98179.062
68


98179.063
69


98179.064
70


98179.065
71


98179.066
72


98179.067
73


98179.068
74


98179.069
75


98179.070
76


98179.071
77


98179.072
78


98179.073
79


98179.074
80


98179.075
81


98179.076
82


98179.077
83


98179.078
84


98179.079
85


98179.080
86


98179.081
87


98179.082
88


98179.083
89


98179.084
90


98179.085
91


98179.086
92


98179.087
93


98179.088
94


98179.089
95


98179.090
96


98179.100
97


98179.101
98


98179.102
99


98179.103
100


98179.104
101


98179.105
102


98179.106
103


98179.107
104


98179.108
105


98179.109
106


98179.110
107


98179.111
108


98179.112
109


98179.113
110


98179.114
111


98179.115
112


98179.116
113


98179.117
114


98179.119
115


98179.120
116


98179.121
117


98179.122
118


98179.123
119


98179.124
120


98179.125
121


98179.126
122


98179.127
123


98179.128
124


98179.129
125


98179.130
126


98179.131
127


98179.132
128


98179.133
129


98179.134
130


98179.135
131


98179.136
132


98179.137
133


98179.138
134


98179.139
135


98179.140
136


98179.141
137


98179.142
138


98179.143
139


98179.144
140


98179.145
141


98179.146
142


98179.147
143


98179.148
144


98179.149
145


98179.150
146


98179.151
147


98179.153
148


98179.154
149


98179.155
150


98179.156
151


98179.157
152

Æ


98179.158