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

32–209 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–947

ECO-TERRORISM SPECIFICALLY EXAMINING THE

EARTH LIBERATION FRONT AND THE ANIMAL

LIBERATION FRONT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 18, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director 

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 18, 2005

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 3

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ............... 5

Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 37

Vitter, Hon. David R., U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ....................... 8

WITNESSES 

Campbell, Bradley, commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection .............................................................................................................. 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 117

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 118

Carroll, Carson, Deputy Assistant Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ............................................................................................ 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Responses to additional questions from Senator Obama .............................. 46

Lewis, John, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation ........ 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 40

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 40

Senator Obama .......................................................................................... 41

Martosko, David, director of research, The Center for Consumer Freedom ....... 21

Exhibits............................................................................................................ 51–109

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 112

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 110

McIntyre, Monty, Esq., Garden Communities ....................................................... 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 121

Skorton, David, president, University of Iowa ...................................................... 25

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 119

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Charts: 

ALF Boast of Raid on University of Iowa Laboratory Including Continuing Threat to Related Professors .......................................................... 127

ALF Instructional Guide to Fire Bombs and Arson, Arson-Around with 

Auntie Alf ...................................................................................................... 124

ALF Raid on University of Iowa Laboratory November 14, 2004..................... 125

Largest ELF Attack in History Garden Communities, San Diego, CA, 

August 2003 ................................................................................................... 128

PETA Supports Terrorist Activity ................................................................... 130

PETA Tax Return Claiming Grant to Terrorist Organization ..................... 129

Dr. Best Supports Terrorist Activity as Their Liaison to the Public ........... 131

Contributors Blocked from Financing ALF Through the Internet ............... 132
Page

IV

—Continued

ELF Earned Commissions From Book Sales Through ELF Web site .......... 133

Dr. Steven Best with 2 ALM Members, All 3 Speakers at Fresno State 

Conference on ‘‘Revoluntionary Environmentalism’’ February 13–14, 

2003 ................................................................................................................ 134

PETA Gives Over $70,000 to ALF Member After Burning Down Michigan 

State Research Lab ....................................................................................... 135

ELF Attacks on Development and Car Dealership ....................................... 136

ELF Web site References EPW Committee Inquiry ...................................... 137

Letters: 

American Rivers, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Public Interest 

Research Group, May 17, 2005 .................................................................... 138

Pacelle, Wayne, president and CEO, The Humane Society of the United 

States, May 19, 2005 .................................................................................... 141

Report, Representative Bennie G. Thompson, Ranking Member, House Committee on Homeland Security, April 19, 2005 ................................................ 145–149

Statements: 

Kerr, Jeffrey S., general counsel and director of Corporate Affairs, The 

PETA Foundation ......................................................................................... 138

Kursban, Mindy, Esq., general counsel and executive director, Physicians 

Committee for Responsible Medicine .......................................................... 149
(1)

ECO-TERRORISM SPECIFICALLY EXAMINING 

THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT AND THE 

ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in room 406, 

Senate Dirksen Building, the Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Warner, Vitter, Jeffords, and Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Today, the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works will highlight the findings of the committee’s ongoing 

investigation into the issue of eco-terrorism. The Patriot Act defines terrorism as ‘‘the unlawful use of force and violence against 

people or property to intimidate or coerce Government or civilian 

population in furtherance of a political or social objective.’’ 

The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security agree that eco-terrorism is a severe problem, naming the serious domestic terrorist threat in the United States today as the 

Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front 

(ALF) which, by all accounts, is a converging movement with similar ideologies in common personnel. 

ELF and ALF are terrorists by definition, using intimidation, 

threats, acts of violence, and property destruction to force their 

opinions of proper environmental and animal rights policy upon society. ELF and ALF resort to arson, sabotage, and harassment in 

hopes of using fear to attain their goals of hampering development 

and free commerce. In fact, ELF and ALF are responsible for estimating conservatively, over $110 million in damages and 1,100 acts 

of terrorism in the last decade. ELF and ALF’s weapon of choice 

is arson, placing instructions on how to effectively set fire to animal abusers on their Web site, which is chart No. 1, Arson-Around 

with Auntie ALF. This is a book on how to make incendiary devices 

and firebombs. 

[The referenced document follows on page 124.] 

Today, we will hear from Federal law enforcement agencies, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, To-
2

bacco, Firearms, and Explosives, who will discuss the problem of 

ELF and ALF and law enforcement’s reaction to their dangerous 

and destructive tactics. It is these tactics, particularly the widespread use of arson, which makes ELF and ALF the No. 1 domestic 

terror concern over the likes of white supremacists, militias, and 

anti-abortion groups. 

We will also hear testimony today from victims of ELF and ALF. 

The University of Iowa fell victim to an ALF raid in November 

2004, in which a laboratory suffered $450,000 in damages, and the 

associated professors’ names and addresses were published on the 

ALF Web site, inviting further terror. Chart No. 3 is the ALF Web 

site with professors’ names and home addresses. 

[The referenced document follows on page 127.] 

Unfortunately, the University of Iowa is only 1 example of many 

laboratories that have been attacked by ALF, destroying years of 

research that could have produced results that we can only wonder 

about. 

We will hear today from a victim of the largest ALF attack in history, causing estimated damages of $22 million. Chart No. 4 is 

a picture of the construction site before and after the arson. 

[The referenced document follows on page 128.] 

Garden Communities, a developing company, was building a 5 

story, 306-unit condominium complex in an urban area of San 

Diego, CA, that was burned to the ground, forcing over 400 people 

to be evacuated from their homes. A banner reading, ‘‘If you build 

it, we will burn it, the ELFs are mad’’ was found at the crime 

scene. 

Just like Al Qaeda and other terrorist movements, ELF and ALF 

cannot accomplish their goals without money, membership and the 

media. ELF and ALF have received support from mainstream activists in each of these categories. We will learn today of a growing 

network of support for extremists like ELF and ALF. For example, 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, a 501(c)(3) 

tax-exempt organization, has given money to ELF and ALF members, while acting as the spokesgroup for ELF and ALF after committing acts of terrorism. 

Chart No. 6 is a PETA document stating that they are the 

spokesgroup. These are not things that are accusations. These are 

facts, all documented. 

[The referenced document follows on page 130.] 

Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA, was invited to testify 

today at the hearing, but declined the committee’s invitation. Along 

with help from above-ground organizations, ELF and ALF receive 

assistance in recruiting membership and media relations. Dr. Steven Best, a University of Texas professor, is an example of a 

spokesperson for ELF and ALF, who acts as a conduit for terrorists 

to the mainstream. Chart No. 7 is an ELF and ALF contact resource document. 

[The referenced document follows on page 131.] 

Dr. Best, through his writings, speeches, and the ALF Web site, 

advocates ALF and their practices, crossing the line between first 

amendment speech and criminal behavior inciting violence. Mr. 

Best declined the committee’s invitation to speak today to appear 

at this hearing. 
3

In addition to assistance from recruiters and well known 

501(c)(3)s, ELF and ALF are able to raise money through the Internet. A supporter of ELF and ALF could go to either the ELF or 

ALF Web site and literally click a button to give money to a terrorist movement. Chart No. 8 is the ALF Web site, illustrating how 

one could now and does donate money. As a result of the committee’s investigation, ELF and ALF are no longer receiving money 

through the Internet from sympathizers. 

[The referenced document follows on page 132.] 

The same is true for corporate sponsorship for the sales of goods 

through the ELF Web site. Before this committee’s investigation, 

ELF was receiving a commission of up to 30 percent for the sale 

of books and posters. For example, Amazon.com paid ELF commissions for the sale of books through the ELF Web site. Chart No. 

9 is the ELF Web site with Amazon.com. As a result of our investigation, Amazon.com removed their ad from the ELF Web site. 

[The referenced document follows on page 133.] 

The danger of ELF and ALF is imminent. Experts agree that although they have not killed anyone to date, it is only a matter of 

time until someone dies as a result of ELF and ALF criminal activity. With direct actions such as cutting the brake lines of 38 seafood delivery trucks, or the use of fire bombs and incendiary devices, it is through luck not planning, that there have been no ELF 

and ALF casualties. As a country, we must not only condemn terrorism, but we must also condemn the support and acts in furtherance of terrorism. It is time to take a look at the culture and the 

climate of support for criminally based activism like ELF and ALF, 

and do something about it. 

As with any other criminal enterprise, we cannot allow individuals and organizations to, in effect, aid and abet criminal behavior 

or provide comfort and support to them after the fact, just as we 

cannot allow the individuals and organizations to surf in between 

the laws of permissible free speech and speech that incites violence, 

when we know the goal is to inspire people to commit crimes of violence. This hearing will begin the process of scrutinizing criminally 

based activism, as well as call into question the essential support 

received from mainstream individuals and organizations. 

Before we hear testimony from our witnesses, I would like to 

show you just how serious this matter is. ELF and ALF recruit 

their membership from young people between the ages of 18 and 

25. We are going to show you a video in a minute. But before we 

do, I would like to get our opening statements out of the way. Feel 

free to take whatever time you want, because I went a little bit 

over. Then I will introduce the video that we will be watching. 

Senator Jeffords. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator JEFFORDS. Radical extremist groups, whether eco-terrorists, abortion clinic bombers or white supremacists have no role in 

our democratic society. No one supports violent criminal action, regardless of the motivation. 

I strongly condemn the actions claimed on behalf of the Animal 

Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. Fortunately, our 
4

Nation’s law enforcement agencies appear to be successfully countering the threat posed by radical extremist groups. 

Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, testified in February that 

the serious incidents of animal rights and eco-terrorism decreased 

in 2004, largely due to law enforcement’s successes. 

As we will discuss eco-terrorism, it is important to make clear 

that there is no evidence that any mainstream environmental organization supports the criminal activities of the Earth Liberation 

Front, ELF. In fact, I would like to submit for the record, a letter 

signed by all of the major environmental groups which, ‘‘strongly 

condemns all acts of violence, including those committed in the 

name of environmental causes.’’

Timothy McVeigh’s membership in the National Rifle Association 

did not make the NRA responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. 

I have also been asked to submit for the record a statement from 

the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, since they 

were unable to attend this hearing. 

Similarly, I request that the hearing record remain open, as the 

Humane Society of the United States, has requested the opportunity to respond to the charges in Mr. Martosko’s testimony. 

[The referenced document follows on pages 138.] 

I am puzzled while the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee is examining the issue of animal rights and eco-terrorism, since the committee lacks jurisdiction over the criminal law 

enforcement issues. Such matters are more appropriately addressed by the Judiciary or Homeland Security Committees. 

Nevertheless, I look forward to learning what the committee can 

do to address the problems posed by domestic terrorism. For that 

reason, I am extremely disappointed that Congressman Benny 

Thompson, the Ranking Member of the House Representative 

Homeland Security Committee has not been allowed to testify 

today. This violates the basic congressional courtesy and Senate 

tradition. 

Moreover, based on his position as the Ranking Member on the 

Homeland Security Committee, his testimony certainly would have 

been relevant to this hearing on terrorism. I would like to submit 

for the record a report that Congressman Thompson prepared entitled, ‘‘Ten Years After the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Department of Homeland Security Must Do More To Fight Right Wing 

Domestic Terrorists.’’

[The referenced document follows on pages 145.] 

The report highlights the apparent failure of the DHS to address 

the threat posed by right-wing domestic terrorist groups in the Department’s 5-year budget planning document. I share his concern 

that the Department of Homeland Security needs to protect us 

from all terrorist threats, and should not focus on eco-terrorism at 

the expense of other domestic terrorist groups, such as the KKK, 

right wing militias, abortion clinic bombers, and skin heads. 

While the Environment Committee has no jurisdiction over 

criminal law enforcement, we do have a responsibility to protect 

our communities from terrorists who target industrial facilities in 

hopes of creating massive environmental releases that could cause 

widespread havoc and countless deaths. 
5

Chemical plants, for example, have been called ‘‘pre-positioned 

weapons of mass destruction,’’ since there are over 100 facilities 

across the Nation that have the potential to threaten over 100 million people. 

Congress also needs to build on last year’s bipartisan nuclear security legislation, that would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Homeland Security to address the 

vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants and waste storage facilities. 

Finally, Congress should act now to reduce the risk posed by 

roughly 16,000 wastewater treatment facilities nationwide that still 

threaten their communities through the use of potentially deadly 

chlorine gas. 

In summary, Congress cannot do much about individual extremists committing crimes in the name of ELF or ALF, but we can act 

to significantly enhance the safety of the communities across the 

Nation. ELF and ALF may threaten dozens of people each year, 

but an incident at a chemical, nuclear, or wastewater facility would 

threaten tens of thousands. 

To truly protect our homeland security, I pledge to work with my 

colleagues to ensure that the DHS assesses all domestic terrorist 

threats, and to enact meaningful chemical, nuclear, and wastewater security legislation. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman, for trying to 

bring some light into this situation that we see with ELF and ALF. 

You, Mr. Chairman, have been touched by terrorism in your home 

State. I have been touched by it, by the loss of friends and neighbors who died through the attack on the Trade Center on 9/11. 

Terrorists committed these acts. The fact that one was a domestic terrorist and the others were foreign has little to do with the 

description of the action that they took. It is terrorism. 

When we look at what we are seeing here, I think we must be 

careful in our anger and our disgust at the unlawful actions that 

some of these people have taken, ELF and ALF, and others, as 

often loose associations of individuals committing these acts. To 

suggest that this is a terror ring and intimate that environmental 

organizations are all kind of tinged or come under the umbrella of 

terrorism, I think it is unfair and unwise. 

I condemn unlawful acts wherever they occur. But if there is a 

violent killer who takes multiple lives out there, we do not say that 

he is a terrorist, not that we have to shy from calling him any 

name we want. But the label of a terrorist, a terrorist conspiracy 

that spreads through the environmental community, I think, is excessive name calling, and we ought not to engage in it. 

Now I happen to live directly across the river from where the 

World Trade Center was. I was a Commissioner of the Port Authority and had offices in that building when I came to the U.S. Senate. 

The lives that were touched throughout our State and New York 

State and the surrounding States left heartbreak that can never 
6

ever be forgotten or repaired. Because we are still seeing the effects 

on people’s health who participated in the rescue operations at the 

World Trade Center. 

When I look at what has happened against Americans abroad by 

terror rings, Al Qaeda and the others, it surpasses my view of what 

are environmentalists extremes, or extremes in any group. We describe them as religious fanatics. They want to kill people, they 

want to behead them, so we describe them as religious fanatics, as 

terror groups. 

You have to be careful, I think, when you look at the issues of 

environmental protection and, see excesses. I condemn them. There 

is nothing worse than anyone who decides that in this Nation of 

laws that we have here, that they are entitled to do it their way, 

outside the scope of the law. There is no way that we can accept 

that. 

We should prosecute these things diligently, Mr. Chairman. I 

know that you have been here long enough, and you know the 

rules. We have no basis in this committee to conduct an investigation of the criminality, but to try and identify a problem. I share 

that mission. 

We are blessed in this country to have a political system. We are 

free to disagree with one another, with our Government. When we 

want to change things, we have to change them within the law. 

So again, I enforce my condemnation of any violence for political 

or ideological purpose. I am concerned that people in my State, who 

have been victimized by individuals or groups, that want to change 

policies regarding their treatment or the environment, may be classified as terrorists, even if there is no terrorist act, but terrorism 

by some kind of an association that is so loose it is hard to find 

the connection. We have to keep things in perspective. 

We have just seen this now, when Eric Rudolph recently pleaded 

guilty to placing a bomb in a public area during the Olympic 

Games in 1996, as well as bombing a Birmingham Women’s Clinic 

and a gay night club. Since 1993, there have been at least 5 fatal 

attacks on doctors who perform legal abortions. 

I did not know whether they had been described in these chambers as terrorists. But certainly, the appellation would fit very well 

there. All of these cases involve loss of human life. 

Thank goodness, no life has been lost in the pursuit of these horrible goals that these organizations have set for themselves in the 

guise of trying to protect the environment. It is still wrong. It is 

wrong to destroy property and intimidate people who are doing 

their jobs. Those who commit crimes must be brought to justice. 

We should not allow ourselves to be blinded by the more serious 

threats posed by those who have taken innocent lives. We must be 

careful not to proclaim guilt by association. The acts of 1 individual 

do not mean that an entire organization can be labeled as a terrorist group. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that you said in your opening 

remarks is that ELF and ALF have received dollars from mainstream activists, which certainly is true, but not from mainstream 

environmental organizations. We ought not to let that thought 

creep out there, that perhaps environmentalism is a bad thing to 

be conscious of. 
7

So when we see what happened with McVeigh, a member of the 

NRA, that does not make the NRA a terrorist group. The National 

Right to Life Committee is opposed to legal abortion. Eric Rudolph, 

with his behavior, was criminal, and he was involved with several 

anti-abortion groups. That does mean that all members of the National Right to Life Committee are terrorists or that members generally are terrorists. Terror is a tactic, and we have to condemn 

that tactic wherever it raises its ugly head, regardless of the ideology of those who would employ it. 

But we must take care, Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, not to 

lump legitimate groups with terrorists. To do so would only minimize the very real threats against our society, and I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I know that you have been personally touched by terrorism as have I. Your State was the site of the deadly bombing of the Federal building that killed 168 people and wounded more than 500. No 

American will ever forget the images of the innocent children who were killed or 

injured in that blast. 

Nor will any American forget September 11, 2001. From northern New Jersey, 

people could see the smoke rising from the attack on the World Trade Center that 

killed 700 of my fellow New Jerseyans. 

I mention these horrible events to provide some background and perspective to 

the issues we will be discussing today. In our country we are blessed to have a political system where we are free to disagree with one another and with our Government. 

When we want to change things, we must work for change within the law not 

break the law. So I condemn any violence for political or ideological purposes. I am 

concerned that people in my State have been victimized by individuals or groups 

that want to change policies regarding the treatment of animals, or the environment. 

Having said that, we need to keep things in perspective. As I mentioned, the 

Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people. The attacks of 9/11 killed 3,000. 

Since 1993, there have been at least 5 fatal attacks on doctors who performed 

legal abortions. Eric Rudolph recently pleaded guilty to placing a bomb in a public 

area during the Olympic Games in 1996, as well as bombing a Birmingham women’s 

clinic and a gay nightclub. 

All of these cases involved the loss of human life. To date, not a single incident 

of so-called environmental terrorism has killed anyone. It’s wrong to destroy property and intimidate people who are doing their jobs and those who commit these 

crimes must be brought to justice. 

But let us not allow ourselves to be blinded to the more serious threats posed by 

those who have taken innocent lives. We also must be careful not to proclaim guilt 

by association. 

The acts of 1 individual do not mean that an entire organization can be labeled 

a terrorist group. Timothy McVeigh was a member of the National Rifle Association. 

That doesn’t make the NRA a terrorist group. 

The National Right to Life Committee is opposed to legal abortion. Eric Rudolph 

bombed a Birmingham abortion clinic, and he was involved with several anti-abortion groups. That doesn’t mean that the members of the National Right to Life Committee are terrorists. 

Terror is a tactic. We must condemn that tactic whenever it raises its ugly head 

regardless of the ideology of those who would employ it. But we must take care not 

to lump legitimate groups with terrorists. To do so would only minimize the very 

real threats against our society.

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you, Senator Lautenberg, and since 

you made a reference to my opening statement, I can respond. First 

of all, we have to understand that it is not this committee, it is the 
8

FBI that identified these groups as the No. 1 domestic terrorist 

groups that we are dealing with. 

No. 2, on the jurisdiction question, I certainly think we have jurisdiction. Because in spite of your statement that there is no relationship between legitimate mainstream environmental groups, 

there is. There is a dollar relationship between them. 

No. 3, I am not about to sit aside and wait until someone is 

killed with an IED, and you know it is going to happen. You know 

it is going to happen, if we allow them to continue to do this. I 

think every committee of the House and the Senate should get on 

board and put an end to this thing, and we are doing the job that 

we have to do. 

Before you came in, Senator Vitter, I commented that we are 

going to see a short video after the opening statement. So as soon 

as your statement is completed, we will do that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, since your remarks were 

directed to me, I feel that I should have a chance to respond. I 

would respond only by asking, if you would say that a large part 

of the Right to Life group have committed terrorist acts, because 

they do contribute to the Right to Life movement, including those 

who are the extremists as terrorists. 

I do not intend to sit by, either. No one who knows me would 

suggest that I tolerate this kind of thing. I just want us to be fair, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for your 

leadership with this hearing today. I applaud it. I applaud use of 

the term terrorism for these specific acts and these specific loose 

organizations, because I think it is absolutely appropriate. 

You look up the definition, and this is what terrorism is about. 

It is using violent and illegal activity to try to intimidate people, 

scare people into submission to go along with these extremist political agendas. That is basically the dictionary definition of terrorism. Unfortunately, that is what has been happening in these 

cases, including the ALF. The very name tells you something, the 

Animal Liberation Front. 

I know about this from direct experience, unfortunately, in Louisiana, at Louisiana State University. LSU experienced this sort of 

eco-terrorism twice in the last few years. It caused hundreds of 

thousands of dollars worth of damages. 

But more importantly, it really scared the heck out of a lot people. It made people truly fear for their safety, and also shut down 

working productive labs for a year, labs that were advancing 

science, advancing solutions to real problems that we need to address. 

The first attack at LSU occurred on September 24, 2003, in a 

school of veterinary facility used for inhalation and toxicology research. It is important to point out, and I think useful to point out, 

that even though the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for this, there were no animals in the laboratory at the time. 
9

Nevertheless, the folks involved, associated with the ALF, vandalized the facility. 

They destroyed walls and cabinets and expensive laboratory 

equipment, and generally trashed the entire laboratory. They 

caused an estimated $250,000 worth of damage to the property. 

Even more serious, they scared the heck out of a lot of good people 

who were only doing their job, doing mainstream and worthwhile 

scientific work. Research in the laboratory, because of this attack, 

had to be suspended for about a year, as repairs were made. Again, 

that is really concerning to me. A few hours after that LSU attack, 

the ALF sent an e-mail to the local news media and an LSU student newspaper, taking blame for the damage. 

Less than a month ago, a second attack happened at LSU. This 

was on April 22. The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for a second attack. 

Senator INHOFE. What was the date of that one, the second one? 

Senator VITTER. It was April 22. So very recently, there was a 

second attack at LSU, when 2 different animal facilities on the 

LSU campus were attacked. It occurred at the Life Sciences Facility at the central LSU campus. 

Again, these attackers entered through, in this case, ventilation 

grid, built into a rear door, that is permanently locked and generally just used as an emergency exit. They broke into several 

rooms. They damaged expensive equipment. They generally damaged the laboratory. They messed up a number of experiments and 

ongoing work that was going on. 

But even beyond the money damage, the physical damage, which 

was very significant, again, they scared the heck out of a lot of 

good people, in a clear attempt to intimidate them. Those 2 laboratories have had to be shut down for an extended period of time 

while repairs are being made. 

ALF posted pictures taken from within the facility on their Web 

site, moving these from server to server, to prevent tracking of the 

server. This clearly points out that this is a movement. This is an 

organization. This is not simply 1 or 2 or 3 individuals. But they 

are claiming responsibility. They are posting pictures of their violence on their Web site. 

So I am very concerned about this activity across the country 

and, unfortunately, these 2 attacks on the campus of LSU are 2 interesting examples. 

I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, if we allow this to go on, it is 

only a matter of time until these sources of attacks lead to the loss 

of human life. So I thank you for this hearing. I thank the law enforcement and other enforcement and other officials here for their 

continuing work to counteract this very violent and terroristic activity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in putting this hearing together 

today. I also want to thank our witnesses for coming to testify about this very important issue. 

This an important issue in Louisiana specifically because Louisiana State University has experienced eco-terrorism twice in the last few years. It caused hundreds 
10

of thousands of dollars worth of damages but more importantly has also led the people who work there to fear for their safety. 

Over the past 3 years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) claimed responsibility 

for 2 attacks at the Louisiana State University. ALF’s first attack at LSU occurred 

on September 24, 2003, in a School of Veterinary Medicine facility used for inhalation and toxicology research. It is important to point out that no animals were in 

the laboratory at the time when ALF vandalized this facility. However, ALF vandals 

spray-painted slogans over several walls and cabinets, destroyed several pieces of 

expensive laboratory equipment, and generally trashed the entire laboratory causing 

an estimated $250,000 worth of damage to the property. Research in the laboratory 

was suspended for about a year as repairs were made. Even more concerning, the 

faculty and staff suffered fear and depression from ALF’s attacks. This psychological 

harm was considerable and the people working in the facility feared for their safety. 

Today, we will hear from other victims who also fear they would be in danger 

since ALF has a track record of lawless behavior and their home addresses were 

public record. A few hours after the LSU attack, ALF sent an e-mail to local news 

media and a LSU student newspaper taking blame for the damage. Sending news 

of the attacks to an LSU student newspaper, reveals how ALF intentionally targets 

young members for recruitment. It is necessary to prevent our youth from recruitment by these terrorist activities. 

Less than a month ago on April 22, 2005, the Animal Liberation Front claimed 

responsibility for a second attack when ALF entered 1 of 2 animal facilities on the 

LSU campus. This attack occurred at the ‘‘Life Sciences’’ facility in central campus. 

ALF vandals entered through ventilation grids built into a rear door that is permanently locked and used as an emergency exit only. ALF also broke into another 

room by breaking the window in the door, reaching in, and unlocking the door. Ten 

mice and a few cages were stolen from the room. Then, ALF entered another room 

at the facility and destroyed 9 empty fish tanks. ALF also entered a third room and 

damaged equipment. 

ALF vandals again spray-painted slogans on the walls and on valuable equipment, they threw acetone on the walls to strip paint, and injected epoxy glue into 

door locks. ALF posted pictures taken from within the facility on their web site, 

moving these from server to server to prevent tracking of the server. This second 

attack resulted in an estimated $30,000 worth of damage to the property. Again, the 

faculty and staff suffered psychological harm from the fear of their safety due to this 

incident. 

It is important to point out that ALF actually harmed mice in the facility which 

resulted in the deaths of the mice. ALF moved the mice from 1 cage to another, removed their identifying cage cards and made it impossible to identify which groups 

the mice belonged to. As a result, this necessitated the euthanasia of all 80+ mice 

in the room, and a repeat of the study. This will set back the research by a year. 

I am very concerned and troubled by ALF’s destruction and harm towards LSU’s 

faculty, staff and property in these 2 domestic terrorist attacks. The LSU’s attacks 

are just a few examples of how these domestic terrorists negatively impact individuals and businesses across the Nation. Today we will also hear from Mr. David 

Skorton, President of the University of Iowa who will testify on the attacks at his 

University. It is wrong for domestic terrorists to commit violent attacks on universities that are involved in research for the development of medicines and procedures 

that could benefit humans and save lives. 

It is only a matter of time until these attacks by domestic terrorists involving 

arson result in human deaths. We can no longer stand by and accept these attacks—stronger penalties are necessary. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and gain a better understanding of how these domestic terrorist groups and 

their activities are a danger to Americans and how these groups attempt to unilaterally change environmental and animal rights policy through their acts of terrorism. 

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman for your efforts to organize this hearing.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

I have just been notified that the Democrats have objected to all 

committees meeting past 11:30 today. For that reason, I am going 

to move along here, because we want to get to both panels in the 

next hour and a half. 

I am going to ask them now to show this video. This video is a 

video of actually recruiting people as a part of this terrorist movement. 

[Video shown.] 
11

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of moving 

along, do we want to continue to see this? 

Senator INHOFE. You bet. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The point is made. You have some crazy 

guy who is advocating violence. 

Senator INHOFE. We will go on. 

[Video shown.] 

Senator INHOFE. All right, I hope that you understand, and I 

would say to my good friend, Senator Lautenberg, that was at 

American University. It was sanctioned and it was on campus, 

raising money to go around to other campuses in New Jersey, 

Oklahoma, and elsewhere. 

We are going to go on now to our panel. First of all, our first 

panel is John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI, and the 

second individual on the first panel is Carson Carroll, Deputy Assistant Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives. 

We appreciate very much both of you being here. Let us start 

with you, John, if you would please, and your statement. If anyone 

wants to abbreviate their statement, their entire statement will be 

made a part of the record. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN LEWIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to be here this morning and discuss the threat posed by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists in this country, as well as 

the measures that the FBI and our partners are taking to address 

this threat. 

This is 1 of today’s most serious domestic threats, coming from 

the special interest extremist movements that we have heard about 

this morning: ALF, ELF, as well as another outfit called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, commonly known as SHAC. 

I am gratified to hear your comments this morning, and the FBI 

certainly shares your opinion that these individuals are most certainly domestic terrorists, in the truest sense, because their agenda 

clearly advocates the unlawful or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce our society, our Government, for the 

benefit of their own ideological or political reasons. 

Direct action is often criminal activity that destroys property or 

causes economic loss to targeted companies. Traditional targets 

have ranged from, but have not been limited to, research labs, restaurants, fur farmers, and forestry services. Extremists have used 

arson, bombings, theft, animal releases, vandalism, and office takeovers to achieve their goals. 

The distinctions between Constitutionally protected advocacy and 

violent, criminal activity are extremely important to recognize, and 

law enforcement officials should be solely concerned with those individuals who pursue animal rights or environmental protection 

through force, violence, or criminal activity. Law enforcement only 

becomes involved when volatile talk turns into criminal activity. 

The FBI has seen a significant amount of such criminal activity. 

From January 1990 to June 2004, animal and environmental rights 
12

extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200, resulting in 

millions of dollars of damages and monetary loss. 

An analysis of these incidents occurring between the year 1977 

and 2004 reflects that nearly 70 percent of these direct actions are 

acts of violence, ranging in seriousness. About 12 percent of these 

are related to animal thefts and releases. Beyond that, about 10 

percent of these are related to arson and other crimes. 

While most animal rights and eco-extremists have refrained from 

violence targeting human life, the FBI has observed troubling signs 

that this is changing. We have seen an escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics. One extremist recently said, ‘‘If someone is killing, 

on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can 

only be stopped in 1 way by the use of violence, then it is certainly 

a morally justifiable solution.’’

An ALF communication, recently released in 2002 on its Web site 

states the following, ‘‘Where it is necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice and provide the needed protection for our planet, that decades of legal battles, pleading, 

protest, and economic sabotage have failed to achieve.’’

Attacks are also growing in frequency and size. Harassing phone 

calls and vandalism now co-exist with improvised explosive devices 

and personal threats to employees. ELF’s target list has expanded 

to include sports utility vehicle dealerships, as well as new home 

developers. We believe these trends will persist, particularly with 

the environmental movement, as extremists continue to combat 

what they perceive as ‘‘urban sprawl.’’

Preventing such criminal activity has become increasingly difficult, in large part, because extremists in these movements are 

very knowledgeable about the letter of the law and the limits of 

law enforcement. Moreover, they are highly autonomous. Lists of 

targets and instructions on making incendiary devices are posted 

on the Internet, but criminal incidents are carried out by individuals or small groups, acting unilaterally. 

Criminal activity by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists, 

in particular, requires relatively minor amounts of equipment and 

minimal funding. Extremists of these movements adhere to strict 

security measures, in both their communications as well as their 

operations. 

The FBI has developed a strong response to domestic terrorism 

threats. Together with our partners, we are working to detect, disrupt, and dismantle the animal rights and environmental extremist 

movements that are involved in this criminal activity. 

Our efforts are headed by a headquarters-based team of national 

intelligence analysts, program managers, and seasoned field 

agents. To address this crime problem, we have drawn upon our 

traditional criminal investigative resources, and have brought to 

this challenge additional and newer resources that today figure 

prominently in our international terrorism investigations. 

Examples of these, without going into too much detail, are what 

we do in the area of terrorism finance operations, as well as similar 

help that we draw from our communication exploitation section. 

Second, we have strengthened our intelligence capabilities. Since 

2003, we have disseminated 64 raw intelligence reports to our partners throughout the United States law enforcement community, 
13

pertaining to animal rights extremism, as well as eco-terrorism activity. 

In addition, since 2004, we have disseminated 19 strategic intelligence assessments to our Federal, State, and local counterparts. 

Finally, we have strengthened our partnerships. We have combined 

our expertise and resources with those of our Federal, State, and 

local law enforcement partners nationwide, through our 103 Joint 

Terrorism Task Forces. We have increased training for our JTTF 

members, and have a strong and reoccurring liaison with foreign 

law enforcement agencies who are experiencing similar crime problems. 

Our challenges are significant, but so are our successes. Currently, 35 of our 56 FBI field offices have over 150 pending investigations off of the JTTFs in this area. Since the beginning of 2004, 

the FBI and its partners have made a high number of high profile 

arrests of individuals involved in both animal rights extremism, as 

well as eco-terrorism. These arrests have led to successful prosecutions. 

One of greatest challenges has been the lack of Federal criminal 

statutes to properly address the multi-state campaigns of intimidation, threats, and damage designed to shut legitimate businesses. 

On this legislative front, we are most certainly interested in 

working with you to examine Federal criminal statutes, to see 

where they might be amended or augmented. These statutes provide a framework for the prosecution of animal rights extremists, 

but in practice, they do not cover many of the criminal acts the extremists have committed. 

Investigating and preventing animal rights extremism and ecoterrorism is one of the FBI’s highest domestic terrorism priorities. 

We are committed to working with our partners to disrupt and dismantle these movements, and to bring to justice those who commit 

crime in the name of animal or environmental rights. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to discuss the challenges we face today in this area, 

and would be pleased to answer questions at the conclusion of our 

testimony. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for that excellent opening statement. 

Senator Warner, we have just heard from the first witness, John 

Lewis of the FBI. Would you like to make an opening statement? 

[No response.] 

Senator INHOFE. All right, we will now hear from Mr. Carroll. 

STATEMENT OF CARSON CARROLL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND 

EXPLOSIVES 

Mr. CARROLL. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe and members of 

the committee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss the contributions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in relationship to the investigation 

of violent crimes perpetrated by environmental and animal rights 

extremists. 

Two of the most active extremists movements in the United 

States today are the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Lib-
14

eration Front. Both tend to engage in criminal activities designed 

to make a direct adverse economic impact on the chosen target. In 

the Pacific Northwest, where I was the special agent in charge of 

the Seattle Field Division, I gained first-hand experience through 

exposure to numerous open arson investigations in the region, allegedly involving ELF and ALF. I saw the threat posed to the communities and to the Nation. 

The most worrisome trend to law enforcement and private industry alike has been the increase in willingness by these movement 

to resort to the use of fire as their first weapon of choice. ATF has 

shown that suspected or known ELF and ALF sponsored arsons 

have been carried out using an assortment of devices ranging from 

primitive to sophisticated, which are described in ELF and ALF literature, print in print and on line. It is important to note that an 

arsonist is extremely dangerous. Because once the fire is set, he or 

she loses control, and the outcome is determined by the chaotic progression of the fire itself. 

Because of this, there have been several close calls connected to 

activity of these extremists. In one case, during an ELF arson incident at the Boise Cascade Office in Oregon, fire fighters were 

pulled back just before the roof collapsed. However, according to 

the U.S. Fire Administration’s annual report, an average of over 

100 fire fighters die per year in the line of duty. 

For the untrained eye, it is very easy to miss the remnants of 

an incendiary and explosive device, in and among the mounds of 

fire-bombed debris. The goal of ATF’s arson programs is to provide 

investigative and technical expertise, rapid response, and state-ofthe-art training, all in the service of reducing violent crimes involving fire. 

In addition to all field agents receiving in depth arson training 

and experience, the agents participate in ATF certified fire investigator CFI program, and are at the forefront of fire investigation. 

They are unequivocally the most highly trained origin-cause investigators in the Federal Government. Prior to initial certification, 

and in addition to the core curriculum, CFI’s must complete a 2-

year process, which includes examination documentation of a minimum of 100 fire scenes. The candidates must prepare an improved 

publishable thesis in the area of fire science, fire dynamics, or fire 

behavior characteristics. 

ATF’s fire protection engineers, who are experts in fire reconstruction and engineering analysis, provide invaluable expertise in 

this area. ATF’s laboratories are instrumental in perfecting ATF 

cases, and also in serving as a resource for State and local law enforcement. The ATF fire research laboratory, located in 

Ammendale, MD, is a one-of-a-kind fire test center, with the capability of replicating fire scenarios for the purpose of detailed analysis. 

ATF also maintains the Arson Explosives National Repository, 

the country’s most comprehensive set of data describing fire and 

explosion incidents. ATF is now using the latest information management technology to make case information available to law enforcement agencies nationwide, through the Bomb and Arson 

Tracking System. 
15

Several of ATF’s programs, such as the National Response Team, 

and Accelerant Detection and Explosives Detection Canine Programs, strengthen our efforts in arson and explosives investigations. 

Mr. Chairman, the Anti-Arson Act of 1982 gave ATF jurisdiction 

in Federal arson offenses. Utilizing this existing statute, as contained in Title 18, U.S. Code Section 844(i), ATF has participated 

in over 100 investigations related to ELF and ALF incidents, with 

some noteworthy success in the following cases: the conviction of 

Jeff Leurs and Craig Marshal for an ELF-related arson that destroyed several sports utility vehicles at an automobile dealership 

in Eugene OR, the prosecution of William Jensen Cottrell for the 

ELF-related arson crimes in West Covina, CA. 

ELF members initiated a combination of pipe bombs and incendiary devices at the Fur Breeder Agricultural Cooperative in 

Sandy, UT. Two defendants pled guilty for that crime. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the 

men and women of ATF, I thank you for your support of our crucial 

work. We are determined to succeed in our mission of reducing violent crime, preventing terrorism, and protecting the public. There 

is no greater evidence of this than our continued commitment in 

the fight against violent acts committed by animal rights and environmental extremists. 

Additional information on relevant ATF programs is contained in 

the long statement provided for the record. I look forward to responding to any questions you may have. 

Senator INHOFE. Great, thank you, Mr. Carroll, for that excellent 

opening statement. 

Before we start our 5-minute rounds of questioning, I would like 

to announce that Dr. Steven Best and Ingrid Newkirk, who is the 

president of PETA, were both invited to participate in today’s hearing, and they declined to attend. 

Our committee investigation is ongoing. We will continue to examine how both organizations receive support and funding. While 

PETA has agreed to provide some information to the committee, 

Dr. Best has flat out refused to assist the committee in any way. 

In our investigation, if we determine that testimony from 1 or 

both of the witnesses is vital, we will explore the option of issuing 

subpoenas to compel them to testify. 

We will start with 5-minute rounds of questioning. I would start 

with you, Mr. Lewis. The FBI has identified ALF and ELF as the 

No. 1 domestic terrorist organizations. I would like to have you describe to us what went into that decision. 

Mr. LEWIS. Sir, that decision is based on a very careful analysis 

of all of the types of cases that we are involved in, within the domestic terrorism program. There have been several of those types 

of groups mentioned here today, right wing extremists, KKK, antiabortion groups and the like. 

There is no question, as you look over the past several years, at 

the amount of damage and the amount of criminal activity that has 

been racked up by these various groups, that animal rights extremists and eco-terrorism, also known as ALF/ELF predominantly are 

way out in front, in terms of the damage that they are causing here 

in the United States. 
16

We are not seeing it today from the other sectors. That does not 

mean we are not looking at them. We, of course, are, as I think 

ATF is, as well, in many cases along with us. But ELF and ALF, 

and certainly SHAC, are way out in front. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. You are much more of 

an expert than I am in the area of terrorism and law enforcement. 

I sit here and I wonder how we have kept a murder from taking 

place during all these incidents. Do you have any ideas, or would 

you offer us your view as to when something like this could happen? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, you used language in your opening remarks, 

Mr. Chairman, that I have used several times, including with your 

staff. Plainly, I think they are lucky. 

As was mentioned by my colleague in his remarks, some of the 

arsons that we have seen around the United States, once you set 

one of these fires, they go terribly out of control. I think that 

through pure luck, we have not seen some stranger or employee or 

other type of person wonder into a site that is ablaze, who needed 

to be there for some legitimate reason. Frankly, they are lucky. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Carroll, would you characterize ELF and 

ALF as sophisticated in their preparation of attacks? Are they people who really are sophisticated in their methodologies? 

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, they are sophisticated, and even more so over 

the last 10 years or so. I think the we have seen an increase in 

the sophistication of the devices used and their methodology. I 

think it is more so in the planning and the care that they take to 

keep their information controlled and within, and how they go 

about keeping that internal. I believe that is where they are very 

sophisticated. 

Senator INHOFE. How would you say, to advance their causes, 

they use the media, and how successful are they in using the 

media? 

Mr. CARROLL. Well, they are successful in using the media. They 

use spokespersons in which somebody will announce that this action was carried out by ALF or ELF. Of course, when there is a 

fire or a major incendiary device, or a fire at a research or a university or a construction site or any of the other sites that we have 

spoken about today, it is on a news media. When it is on the news 

and it is on TV, people can see and watch it and it’s a way of putting the word out. 

Senator INHOFE. I have heard reports also that sometimes the 

media will actually use a Web site where people are allowed to contribute money to promote this type of activity. 

Mr. CARROLL. I am not familiar with all the details related to 

that. I would have to look into that and provide that for the record 

at a later time. 

Senator INHOFE. That would be fine. 

Mr. Lewis, in your printed testimony, you talked about some 

1,200 criminal acts that they claim responsibility for. Is that accurate? 

Mr. LEWIS. It is accurate, sir. It is a compilation of cases that we 

know have been opened and worked, as well as cases they attribute 

to their own actions that are posted on their Web site. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 
17

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Let it be clearly understood that I deplore, as much as anybody 

here, these violent acts, no matter what name they want to attach 

to it. Terrorism is kind of an umbrella name that is being used. 

Mr. Lewis, I noticed that you were kind enough to look at me 

every time you hit a point that you thought I ought to know. I 

thought you were looking at my pin that I got for enlisting in 

World War II, and you wanted to be sure that it was real. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am going to ask if you would consider 

these organizations terrorist organizations. Just respond yes or no: 

Al Qaeda? 

Mr. LEWIS. Definitely. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Hamas? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Hezbollah? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right to Life? 

Mr. LEWIS. That requires a longer explanation. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, you would not, or I would not consider it. But Mr. Carroll, they use arson. These crazies in the extreme movements, in the guise of environmental interests, they are 

a bunch of nuts. If you see this guy here, if he was near me I would 

punch him for the threat, and I have still a good fist. 

Mr. LEWIS. Senator, if I may, 1 of the reasons that I hesitate is 

because there are law-abiding individuals in some of these groups, 

that spend their day trying to do the right thing. There are others 

who are obviously much more radical. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The Sierra Club. 

Mr. LEWIS. I will exclude Al Qaeda from those comments. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How about, you said that people were terrorized by the notion of these actions. Let us see, you consider ecoterrorism the No. 1 domestic terrorist threat. Do I quote you properly? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Are people not more afraid to have their 

kids kidnaped in a mall, or having a rapist breaking into your 

home, or someone who commits a murder? Terrorists acts, how 

would you describe those acts? 

Mr. LEWIS. I think if you asked the common person on the street, 

they might say, yes, we are probably more afraid of that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, because terrorism does not mean 

squat the way we talk about it. 

Mr. LEWIS. The difference between what you have just mentioned 

and what we would consider to be terrorism is that terrorism is an 

ongoing relatively organized effort that is costing this country an 

awful lot of money. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So environmental violence is terrorism. 

Mr. LEWIS. Sir, in your own State, there is a shining example of 

how effective this terrorism campaign has been. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It is awful. It does not need any explanation, Mr. Lewis. It does not need any. I stand against violence. 

If you talk to any of the police organizations, I was Commissioner 
18

of the Port Authority in New York. We had 1 of the best police organizations, and we lost lots of people in the World Trade Center. 

So I am a friend of law enforcement, and I am a friend of the 

FBI. I have great respect for what you and the organization does. 

But I am against this loose characterization that takes innocent 

people and throws them in with a bunch of thugs. Maybe it is the 

Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy. I am 

a tree hugger. I have to tell you that. But I would not hug a tree 

and hurt anybody in the process. 

I took my grandchildren out to the forest, 10 of them, and we 

each planted a tree. The environment means a lot to me. I would 

not stand still for anyone who was trying to damage the environment in any way. But I think when we describe this as the No. 1 

terrorism threat, what is it compared to, what other threats are in 

that category? 

Mr. LEWIS. On the domestic terrorism side? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, what falls in the category of our number domestic threat? 

Mr. LEWIS. The No. 1 domestic terrorism threat is the eco-terrorism animal rights movement, if you will. As I indicated a moment ago, there is nothing else going on in this country, over the 

last several years, that is racking up the high number of violent 

crimes and terrorist actions, arsons, etc., that this particular area 

of domestic terrorism has caused. 

If you go backwards in time to the 1960’s, you could look at the 

KKK, for instance, and see what kind of ruckus they were causing 

in this country. That has subsided. The abortion movement, over 

the last several years, even though they have had killings, as has 

been mentioned here this morning, cannot compare to the frequency, to the geographic dispersement of the campaign that ecoterrorists and animal rights extremists are creating. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How about anti-homosexual? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Lautenberg, because of the fact that the 

objection has been accepted, and all committees have to stop at 

11:30, I would like to hold you real close to your time. Your time 

has expired. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK, because, Mr. Chairman, I honor your 

hand here and your leadership. I really do. Would you mind if I 

write some things to Mr. Lewis and ask more questions of Mr. Carroll? 

Senator INHOFE. If you write them? I am sorry. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Ask them to respond in writing to questions. 

Senator INHOFE. For the record? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. For the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, that would be fine. Yes, of course. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Can I ask 1 question? Did you say you 

were going to subpoena Steven Best and Ingrid Newkirk? 

Senator INHOFE. That is 1 of the options we are looking at. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I see. 

Senator INHOFE. Because we wanted them to come in. We wanted them to defend themselves, if there is a defense. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. No, I just wondered why we did not let 

Benny Thompson join us. He wanted to be here, and the other guy 
19

who did not want to be here, we are going to subpoena. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me just underscore a few points before my questions. This activity, Senator Lautenberg, is the textbook definition 

of terrorism: violent illegal activity, specifically for the point of intimidating and trying to change behavior in society or Government. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you for that explanation. I was not 

aware of that. 

Senator VITTER. Sure, and the other comment I would make directly to you is that nobody here, that I noticed, mentioned the Audubon Society or the Sierra Club, except you. This hearing is about 

ALF and ELF. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, am I on the witness stand? 

If so, I will sit up there and Mr. Vitter can continue to ask me 

questions. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, Mr. Vitter, we have witnesses here. 

Senator VITTER. Sure, I just wanted to make those comments, because I thought they were pertinent. 

I would ask both the witnesses what indicators, trends, if you 

will, over time have you seen to suggest that these activities by 

ELF and ALF are becoming more violent? I am talking about over 

a longer period of time, as a general trend. 

Mr. CARROLL. Well, I think with ATF, we let the crime itself and 

the investigation lead us to the suspect, terrorism or not. If there 

is a fire, we are going to be involved, and we have the expertise 

to work those scenes and we have the resources. 

So to answer your question related to explosive devices, incendiary devices, any time a device is used, it is violent. Whether it 

is more sophisticated now than it was 10 years ago, it is still a violent action, in which injury or death can occur. 

I did make reference to one of the cases in which there were 5 

pipe bombs. The case agent for that case is currently stationed in 

our ATF Headquarters Building, and we discussed it. There was an 

incendiary device, and there was an individual, a caretaker, that 

was I think asleep in 1 of the buildings, and could have died because of that action. Now we have not seen a lot of explosive devices. But I think that would be the 1 indicator, when you are talking about explosive devices, that would show that it is more violent. 

Senator VITTER. OK, and Mr. Lewis, I do not know if you have 

any other comments. But I am trying to understand sort of trends 

over time, and what you have seen in terms of levels of violence, 

and also maybe something related, levels of sophistication. 

Mr. LEWIS. All right, I will tell you that we have seen, over the 

past few years, a growing use of arson as the way to go in terms 

of direct actions. All of us here, I think, know that these wildfires 

can easily take lives. 

We have seen an escalation in the violent rhetoric that is posted 

on their Web site, to my mind, attempting to influence and incite 

those that follow the teachings, if you will, or the propaganda that 

is put on those Web sites. 
20

I would also point out, just in the last few years, to the use of 

improvised explosive devices. I do not know if you are going to have 

anyone here from Chiron or Shaklee. But there are a couple of devices that were used out there that contained shrapnel. Also, that 

scenario contained a second device that was set with a timer to go 

off, presumably, when first responders would show up to render 

first aid. That scenario is intended, in my mind, to do nothing more 

than to kill somebody. 

Senator INHOFE. To kill the ones who are responding—is this 

what you are saying? 

Mr. LEWIS. That is exactly what I am saying. All those things together indicate to me that we have a serious movement afoot, and 

Federal law enforcement, FBI along with its partners, we have to 

take this seriously, and we are. I mean, we are doing an awful lot. 

Mostly, we cannot talk about it, because it is ongoing. But this is 

a serious thing for us. 

Senator VITTER. Again, without talking about any ongoing investigations, what can you tell us about the funding behind these activities? 

Mr. LEWIS. It is not in any way, shape, or form resembling what 

we see in the international terrorist side of the house. The reasons 

for that are fairly simple. I will ask Mr. Carroll to speak of this, 

as well, if you do not mind. 

That is, it does not take an awful lot of money. In fact, it takes 

very little to go out and burn down a housing complex that might 

be under construction, or go into a dealership in the deep of the 

night and set ablaze 150 or whatever cars. All you need is something to carry gasoline or some other accelerant, and an ignition 

source. It is very little money. 

Mr. CARROLL. I have no further comments to that statement. 

Senator VITTER. I appreciate what you are saying. But I assume 

there may be some funding and some transactions that nevertheless support this activity. Is it a focus of your investigations, to the 

extent that there is such funding? 

Mr. LEWIS. As was stated in my opening remarks, we are drawing upon the very deep resources of the Terrorism Finance Operation Section, within our Counter-Terrorism Division. We are taking some of the tools out of that toolbox, if you will, and laying 

them over the domestic terrorism program. 

I hate to go too much deeper, because I do not want to show my 

cards. But we are using every available technique that we can 

bring into play to prosecute these individuals. Thank you both. 

Senator LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. We are going to go 

ahead and dismiss this panel. Because as I mentioned, and it 

might have been before you came in, we are going to have to stop 

at 11:30, because of the objection that was put on the committee’s 

hearings. 

I would like to ask you though, and I know that Senator Lautenberg is going to write some questions for the record. I will be doing 

the same thing, and I would like also for you to include an explanation of what you were about to say, that had happened in New 

Jersey, so that I can have the benefit of that. 
21

We thank you very much for your time being here today. We 

would like to call panel 2, and I will introduce them: David 

Martosko, director of Research, the Center for Consumer Freedom; 

Bradley Campbell, commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Dr. David Skorton, president, University of 

Iowa; and Monty McIntyre, with the Garden Communities. 

The last 2, I believe, were actually victims of ELF and/or ALF 

attacks. So with that, first let me thank you. I do apologize for the 

fact that we are going to have to move this a little faster than we 

thought we were going to. But it is something that cannot be 

helped. 

So I would like to ask you to limit your opening statements to 

5 minutes. We will start with you, Mr. Martosko. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, might I issue a welcome to 

Mr. Bradley Campbell? 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, I would like that, yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. He is the New Jersey Commissioner of the 

Department of Environmental Protection. We welcome him here. 

He is a very accomplished professional, and we thank you for being 

here. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Martosko—am I pronouncing it right, 

Martosko? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. It is Martosko, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Martosko. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Close enough. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MARTOSKO, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, 

THE CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. My name is David Martosko. I am director of Research at the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit organization based here in Washington. It is managed by Berman and Company, which is a public affairs and association management firm, 

which also manages the American Beverage Institute and the Employment Policies Institute. Support for the center comes from 

members of the public and from private industry, including restaurant and food companies. 

I thank you very much for holding this very important hearing 

today. 

The ALF and the ELF, in my way of thinking, do not really exist 

in the way we think of historical underground criminal movements. 

ALF and ELF are labels of convenience, applied to crimes after the 

fact by individuals or small groups in order to draw public attention to their cause. 

This arrangement also gives the criminals the power to claim 

falsely that their movement is non-violent. Crimes that result in 

human bloodshed are simply not officially acknowledged by the 

ALF or ELF, but they do happen. 

These domestic terrorists who start fires, detonate bombs, threaten innocent lives and stalk their targets, do receive assistance, both 

financial and rhetorical, from an above-ground support system. I 

would like to walk you through some of our findings in that regard. 
22

In 1999, a magazine called ‘‘No Compromise,’’ which is published 

by and for militant ALF supporters, printed a list of its benefactors. They included People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 

the Fund for Animals, In Defense of Animals, and the New Jersey 

Animal Rights Alliance. These are all seemingly mainstream animal rights groups with 501(c)(3) Federal tax exemptions. 

The list also included PETA’s president, Ingrid Newkirk, 2 other 

PETA officers, and an activist now on the staff of the Humane Society of the United States. 

Court documents from a Federal terrorism trial scheduled to 

begin next month in New Jersey indicate that the line between this 

so-called underground and its above-ground support network remains quite blurry. 

Wiretap and e-mail trace warrants issued in that case include orders covering PETA employee Joseph Haptas, Humane Society of 

the United States employee Miyun Park, and University of Texas 

Professor Steven Best. 

One of the Defendants in this terrorism case, Joshua Harper, has received a $5,000 grant from PETA. When the FBI searched his 

home last year, they found, among other things, an envelope boobytrapped with a razor blade. This specific weapon has been used in 

ALF-like attacks in the past. 

Regarding the Humane Society of the United States, that organization has funded the operation of an Internet server, which distributed the ALF’s claims for responsibility for violent crimes. According to 1 FBI evidence recovery log, a Humane Society of the 

United States employee named, Ariana Huemer passed money to 

Federal fugitive, Daniel Andreas San Diego, who is presumably responsible and wanted for the bombing of Chiron and Shaklee, 2 

bio-med companies in California. 

John Paul Goodwin, another high-ranking employee at the Humane Society of the United States, has spoken publicly in favor of 

ALF crimes including arson. 

During the 1990’s, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 

paid over $70,000 to support the legal defense of Rodney Coronado, 

the ALF member we watched on video earlier, who was convicted 

of a Michigan State University arson. 

But PETA President, Ingrid Newkirk, was herself implicated in 

that arson by the case’s chief prosecutor. In his sentencing memorandum, U.S. Attorney, Michael Dettmer wrote that Ms. Newkirk 

arranged ‘‘days before the MSU arson occurred’’ for Mr. Coronado 

to send her materials that he would later steal from a targeted laboratory, along with a videotape of the arson being set. 

At the time, PETA’s habit was to claim ignorance about the 

source of materials like these, and then hold a press conference to 

distribute them. 

In 2001, a PETA Campaign Director named Bruce Friedrich told 

an animal rights convention, ‘‘blowing stuff up and smashing windows [is] a great way to bring about animal liberation.’’ Friedrich 

also added that restaurants, slaughterhouses, medical research 

labs, and even their banks should be blown up. He has never retracted these remarks. 

I also want to note for the record that the current crop of Animal 

Liberation Front spokespersons also includes New Jersey Animal 
23

Rights Alliance President, Angie Metler, who is herself a former 

PETA spokesperson. 

The case of University of Texas El Paso Professor Steven Best, 

as a current ALF spokesperson, is very troubling. His academic position affords him a position of regrettable influence over young 

people, and he uses it in the classroom to promote and defend the 

ALF and the ELF. 

Dr. Best even wrote in a recent essay that the negative publicity 

arising from the assassination of someone from my own organization, the Center for Consumer Freedom, would not harm the reputation of the Animal Rights Movement, as a whole. 

The last self-appointed ALF spokesperson I will mention is Dr. 

Jerry Vlasak. In 2003, while appearing as a spokesperson for the 

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which is a PETAaffiliated group, Dr. Vlasak openly endorsed the murder of doctors 

who use animals in their research. 

When a member of his audience objected, comparing his approach to that of abortion clinic bombers, Vlasak replied, ‘‘Absolutely, I think they had a great strategy going.’’

Thank you again for holding this important hearing. I encourage 

you to seriously investigate the ALF, ELF, and similar phantom 

groups, and the above-ground individuals and organizations that 

give them aid and comfort. I urge members of this committee to 

prevail upon your colleagues to re-examine the tax exempt status 

of any groups that have helped to fund, directly or indirectly, these 

domestic terror groups. 

Thank you very much for hearing me today. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, sir. 

Commissioner Campbell. 

STATEMENT OF BRADLEY CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER, NEW 

JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear today on this important topic. If I may, I would 

like my entire statement to be made part of the record, and I will 

summarize briefly, in light of the time constraints. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. As Senator Lautenberg mentioned at the beginning, terrorism of any form has a particular salience and importance to New Jersey. We lost nearly 700 lives in the attacks of September 11 of our residents. 

We were the site of the first bio-terror incident at the Hamilton 

Post Office on U.S. soil. We have ongoing efforts, outlined in my 

testimony, to ensure that the State is prepared, and wherever possible, terrorists acts are prevented and prosecuted. 

In terms of the particular organizations identified today, New 

Jersey has had particular experience in the crimes that have been 

recited. In the area of ideological eco-terrorism, the animal terrorist 

enterprises, we have had more than 16 incidents over the past 8 

years, involving crimes by these types of groups, and particularly, 

by the Animal Liberation Front and the Stop Huntingdon Animal 

Cruelty or SHAC. These were both mentioned in the FBI and ATF 

testimony, and I concur in their characterization. 
24

The damage in these cases ranged from several thousand dollars 

to several hundred thousand dollars over the course of time. I 

think, over the course of each of these incidents, there has been a 

significant learning experience on the part of all agencies of law enforcement, not merely my own Agency, but the Office of Counter 

Terrorism, which works closely with the Federal Department of 

Homeland Security. 

I think what is notable, in part, is the success of traditional law 

enforcement tools, in addressing these groups. Their methods and 

their crimes are akin to those of other felons. 

One reason the law enforcement effort has been successful is because Congress acted, by providing the animal terrorist enterprise 

provisions to Title 18 of the criminal code, Congress recognized this 

and gave State and Federal law enforcement agencies a new tool 

to address the threat. 

This new tool, I think, is well illustrated by the success of our 

U.S. Attorney, Chris Christey, in bringing to indictment 7 members 

of SHAC, and their trial is now pending in the Federal Court for 

the District of New Jersey. We think that there is a broader class 

of eco-terror, particularly the use of chemical, petrochemical, and 

other industrial facilities as a weapon to inflict exposure that will 

result in mass casualty and deaths. We think that also is appropriate for congressional action, just as Congress acted with respect 

to animal terrorist organizations. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for advancing and seeking to 

heighten nuclear security in your legislation asking NRC to address specific challenges with regard to nuclear security facilities, 

where we think a type of impact eco-terrorism is a risk. 

I applaud Senator Corzine and Senator Lautenberg for their 

leadership on chemical security, to try to put in place Federal 

standards and safeguards, and many members of this committee, 

on a bipartisan basis, who have undertaken similar leadership to 

propose and advance legislation on waste water in other facilities, 

where there is this risk that a terrorist organization can create, 

through the use of these facilities, that in many cases, may not 

have adequate safeguards, and certainly do not have enforceable 

Federal standards currently. 

Referring to the chart behind the committee, New Jersey is one 

of those States where millions are literally at risk from potential 

terrorists incidents at these facilities. In South Jersey, alone, we 

have 4 chemical and petrochemical facilities that put millions of 

residents at risk. More than 100 such facilities have been identified 

by our Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force, as critical infrastructure, in the midst of densely populated communities. 

So we ask, as the committee considers this issue, that the committee recognizes the success of congressional leadership, through 

provisions tailored to animal terrorist enterprises, and tries to follow that pattern by supporting and enacting legislation that will 

give both Federal and State agencies additional tools to address 

what we are concerned may be the next generation terrorists 

threat, in terms of terrorist acts at nuclear, petrochemical, and 

chemical facilities, where additional Federal safeguards are needed. 

We also hope that the committee recognizes that in this effort, 

many of the tools that are used for other terrorists threats, outside 
25

the realm of eco-terrorism, have been enormously effective in tracking, monitoring, and responding to ELF and SHAC and ALF in 

their presence in New Jersey. So our long-standing plea, as a State, 

is for better tailored funding formulas for domestic security is 

equally ethical to this threat, as it is to the range of threats that 

the Department of Homeland Security has identified. 

So with that, I see my time is up, and I thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you, Commissioner, that was an excellent statement. Let me just assure you and anyone else who 

might have any doubts about it, that this committee does have jurisdiction over nuclear security, chemical security, waste water security. We have introduced legislation and passed some legislation. 

So we are addressing those. That is not the subject of this hearing today. This is eco-terrorism. It does not mean that we are any 

less concerned about the other legislation that we have proposed in 

this committee in a bipartisan way. 

Dr. Skorton. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID SKORTON, PRESIDENT, 

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 

Dr. SKORTON. Thank you, and I also ask that my entire statement be place in the record. 

Senator INHOFE. It is so ordered. 

Dr. SKORTON. Chairman Inhofe and distinguished members of 

the committee, my name is David Skorton, and I am president of 

the University of Iowa. I am also a physician and professor of internal medicine, biomedical engineering, and electrical engineering. I 

am very honored to have been asked to provide testimony today 

concerning a series of events on the University of Iowa campus. 

These are events that raise a variety of issues related to academic 

freedom, the safe working and living environment, the place of civil 

disobedience on a university campus, and most importantly, the future environment and accessibility of a publicly supported institution of higher education. 

In the early morning hours of Sunday, November 14, 2004, 3 or 

more individuals broke into our Seashore Hall and Spence Laboratories facilities. The intruders smashed and overturned equipment, 

and poured acid and other chemicals on equipment and papers. 

Over 300 rodents were removed from the facility. Many of these rodents, purpose-bred for research and being cared for by faculty 

members, veterinarians, and other animal care professionals, likely 

suffered and died as a result of this action. 

The University of Iowa police, in conjunction with the State of 

Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation, involved the FBI, 

which was central to the investigation of this act of domestic terrorism. All affected units had to be temporarily closed or relocated. 

Not only was research disrupted, but the academic activities and 

careers of faculty, undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral trainees were impaired, adding months to the conduct of 

peer-reviewed, Federally funded research. 

Four days after the break-in, on Thursday, November 18, individuals sent an e-mail to multiple local and national media, claiming 

responsibility on behalf of ALF for the vandalism. The e-mail included the names, home addresses, phone numbers, e-mail address-
26

es, and spouses or partner’s names for faculty, graduate students, 

and laboratory assistants. Publicizing this personal information 

was blatant intimidation. These individuals are still being harassed, and are still concerned about their own safety, as well as 

that of their families. 

In addition to the human cost to the researchers, their colleagues 

and families, the total direct costs for the incident are approximately $450,000. What cannot be measured in monetary terms is 

the loss of progress and research. 

Although the destruction was to research equipment and materials, it is clear from the videos that the group provided to the 

media, that the message of fear and intimidation was meant for a 

much larger audience: our university as a whole and the general 

public. 

Was this an act of informed debate or civil disobedience? I think 

not. First, the perpetrators of the vandalism took no personal responsibility for the acts, but performed the actions wearing ski 

masks or other garments to protect their identities. For example, 

at the heart of Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance was openness and forthrightness, ‘‘daring to do the right and 

facing consequences, whether it is in matters social, political or 

other.’’ Second, direct intimidation of the researchers and the families, intended to cause fear and personal anxiety, was a deliberate 

tactic. Third and most ironically, the attacks occurred on a campus 

which has for decades exceeded Federal regulations regarding the 

humane care and use of animals in teaching and research. 

If not civil disobedience, what was this action? In my estimation, 

it was purely and simply a criminal act. Let us explore very briefly 

the place of public civil discourse in the nationwide discussion of 

the use of animals in research and teaching. 

Thanks to effective decades-long interactions among researchers, 

administrators, and constructive animal welfare groups, the handling and use of research animals have been greatly improved in 

recent decades. On our campus, training and the handling of research animals is mandatory, before personnel can acquire a single 

animal. 

What has been the result on our campus, Mr. Chairman, of the 

deplorable criminal action by a group of vandals, acting in the dark 

of night, taking no responsibility for their actions? First, the environment for researchers at our university has been permanently altered. These researchers now live lives of fear and anger. 

Second, the university and Federal and State taxpayers have had 

to spend funds that were, in essence, wasted on the sequelae of this 

action, rather than on advancing research. This, no doubt, was part 

of the strategy. This action and others like it add to the increasingly significant changes in the openness of American university 

campuses. 

Finally and most importantly, what has not changed and will not 

change on our campus is that our university is completely and unalterably committed to allowing faculty, staff, and students to pursue their chosen research that is scientifically sound, legal, and humane. This criminal act will do nothing but strengthen our resolve 

to stand behind the principles of academic freedom in conducting 
27

publicly supported research toward the advancement of knowledge 

and the improvement of animal and human health. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Skorton. 

Mr. McIntyre. 

STATEMENT OF MONTY MCINTYRE, ESQ., GARDEN 

COMMUNITIES 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

good morning. My name is Monty McIntyre, and it is my privilege 

and my honor to testify before you today on behalf of Garden Communities. 

President Abraham Lincoln, during his Gettysburg address, said 

these words, ‘‘that we here highly resolved that these dead shall 

not have died in vain, that this Nation under God shall have a new 

birth of freedom, and that Government of the people, by the people, 

and for the people shall not perish from the earth.’’

I am here to tell you about the devastating consequences of violent acts by groups like the Earth Liberation Front. They certainly 

do not believe in Government of the people, by the people, or for 

the people. 

On August 1, 2003, ELF torched an apartment building that 

Garden Communities was building in San Diego, CA, totally destroying the building, and causing millions of dollars in damages. 

Garden Communities is a company that builds and operates apartment buildings in California and Arizona, providing homes for 

thousands of people. It also creates jobs, not only for its own employees, but also for many subcontractors and construction professionals that it works with. 

Garden Communities follows the environmental laws applicable 

to its projects. As Senator Boxer from California would know, California has 1 of the toughest environmental laws in the country, 

known as the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. 

Under CEQA, the Garden Communities’ project that we call La 

Jolla Crossroads was required to undergo the most intensive environmental study, which is called an Environmental Impact Report, 

EIR. When an EIR is being prepared, the public is notified and 

given the opportunity to provide input. The EIR considers the potential environmental impacts of the project, and also how those 

impacts might be eliminated or mitigated, and also considers alternative uses of the property. 

The La Jolla Crossroads project went through the entire extensive EIR process and was approved. When completed, the La Jolla 

Crossroads Project will include 9 apartment buildings and 1 scientific research building. Before the ELF attack, the first building 

was expected to be completed by April 2004, and the project completion date was scheduled for August 2009. About 50 to 60 companies and 150 people were working on this project. 

On August 1, 2003, ELF started a fire that completely destroyed 

the first building under construction. Why do we think ELF is responsible? On the ground next to the burned building was a white 

bed sheet with spray painted letters that said, ‘‘You make us mad. 

You build it, we burn it, ELF.’’

All framing and foundation for the building were completely destroyed. All construction work stopped immediately. Many of the 
28

companies who were working on the project struggled financially 

after the fire, and at least 2 of them either went bankrupt or 

stopped conducting business altogether. 

The fire loss also interrupted the good working relationships that 

Garden Communities had developed over the years with several of 

its subcontractors. After the fire, Garden Communities was forced 

to spend its time and resources figuring out the fire loss, removing 

the damage and debris, renegotiating numerous contracts with subcontractors, and working to get the construction going again. 

This fire loss will delay the total project completion by at least 

1 year. Garden Communities has suffered approximately $22 million in damages from this terrorist act. These damages include the 

overhead and general conditions, hard costs for reconstruction of 

the building that was destroyed, and other damages related to the 

entire project, including loss of rental income, increased carrying 

costs, and increased construction costs. 

Garden Communities has also suffered because this fire loss has 

created a dispute with 1 of its insurance carriers. So you can see 

from the summary, Garden Communities has suffered enormous 

damages, as a result of the ELF attack. 

Garden Communities is a good company. It provides jobs for our 

citizens and builds much needed housing for folks in California and 

Arizona. Garden Communities followed the environmental laws 

and was properly building this project. 

By violently taking matters into their own hands, terrorist 

groups like ELF threaten our Nation’s fundamental values, including the idea that our Government should be of the people, by the 

people, and for the people. 

We hope that the U.S. Senate will do everything in its power to 

stop future unlawful acts by terrorist groups like ELF. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

What we are going to do, since I made the announcements that 

the Democrats had opposed the continuation of committee hearings 

past 11:30, I understand there will be 1 or 2 other members coming 

down, Senator Lautenberg. So we are going to adhere to a very 

strict 5-minute questioning, so that others who come in would have 

their turn, also. 

Mr. Martosko. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Martosko. 

Senator INHOFE. Martosko, all right, can I call you David? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Absolutely, I prefer that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. You tried to cover so much, which is our fault, 

in the limited period of time. So I apologize for that. But you said 

something about razor blades. I did not get how that was connected 

to this subject in here. Would you share that with us? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Certainly. In its investigation of Joshua Harper, 

pursuant to the Federal charges in the SHAC case, which trial is 

being started June 1st in New Jersey, in Joshua Harper’s residence, FBI evidence recovered logs indicate that they found 1 of 

these booby-trapped devices, that consists of a envelope boobytrapped and rigged with a razor blade, designed to slice off the finger of the person who opens the envelope. 
29

Now these items have been used before in attacks directed at, I 

believe, fur farmers and biomedical researchers, both in the United 

States and Canada. Generally speaking, these particular crimes did 

not get claimed by the ALF because blood was spilled. 

An example of this is the Canadian attacks. As soon as news reports got out that someone actually was harmed by opening 1 of 

these envelopes, booby-trapped with a razor blade, the claim of responsibility for the crime was issued by a previously unheard of 

group that called itself the Justice Department. This was an ad hoc 

designation. Because, of course, if the ALF officially claimed it, that 

would completely destroy their claim of non-violence. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, and I have 1 other question that I want to ask you. We have a photograph of Rodney Coronado, an ALF member who we saw in the video, Dr. Steven Best, 

and PETA employees at a conference on revolutionary 

environmentalism. What is your sense of the interaction between 

the underground criminal activities and the mainstream activities? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Well, Senator, I think while a picture can certainly say a thousand words, this 1 is on Steven Best’s own Web 

site. He seems very proud of his association with Rodney Coronado, 

who is a convicted ALF arsonist, and Mr. Gary Yourofsky, who is 

also an ALF convict. He spent 6 months in maximum security in 

Canada for raiding a farm up there. 

I should point out, Mr. Yourofsky is a contractor with PETA. 

They have him going into schools and lecturing to children in middle school and high school. You know, he is an ALF convict. It boggles the mind. Of course, Mr. Coronado, as we saw in the video earlier, is out teaching college students how to build incendiary devices. 

Yet, Dr. Best seems very comfortable in their company. I think 

anyone who follows this movement as closely as I do will tell you 

that Dr. Best is at the epicenter right now of the organizational aspect of what the ALF is doing. 

Dr. Best is part cheerleader, part recruiter, if you will. You 

know, he uses his classroom, freely and openly, to indoctrinate adolescents with animal-rights ambitions, and simultaneously praises 

the ALF and ELF. 

As I mentioned before, he has even written, within the last 

month, that it would not be such a bad thing if I personally were 

assassinated. So the mixture between the aboveground and underground is hard to keep track of because the line keeps blurring so 

much. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Skorton, this is interesting. I know that you are not only a 

physician and a professor, but also a biomedical engineer and electrical engineer. 

I have a son who is a biomedical and electrical engineer and a 

hand surgeon. Coincidentally, he called me this morning early, because he knew this was coming up. He just asked a very simple 

question. He said, ‘‘You know, when we are experimenting, it is either going to be with animals or with humans. Why is this a confusing issue?’’ Now when you look at it professionally, what do you 

think about that? Do you agree with my son? 
30

Dr. SKORTON. Well, I would never disagree with your son, sir, in 

public. However let me take a slightly broader view. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, I am going to modify the question, because 

I am almost out of time. I know in your background, No. 1, I understand you are a vegetarian, and I know, No. 2, you have been active in animal rights. I would like to have you, coming from your 

perspective, say how you feel animals are used in the propriety. 

Dr. SKORTON. I appreciate the restatement, sir. I believe there is 

plenty of room for discussion about the appropriate place for animals and humans in research. I consider 1 of my interest to be in 

research ethics, broadly defined. 

That whole area of constructive discussion on the place, the 

rules, and procedures, Federal laws, regulations, animal welfare 

act, USDA regulations, under which animals are used is certainly 

an area where reasonable people can disagree. As I tried to make 

clear in my brief remarks, we have made much progress in the last 

decades by having constructive interaction among Members of Congress, among administrators, among animal researchers, and constructive animal welfare groups. 

I want to set that question aside, of reasonable public discourse, 

and say, that has nothing to do with what you are hearing about 

today. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. 

What you are hearing about today are people frustrated, in my 

estimation, by the fact that things are moving too slowly and not 

in the direction they would like. So they take matters in their own 

hands in a criminal way. 

I would like to clearly separate for the committee my opinion 

that there is plenty of room for reasonable debate on many issues 

in this country. In fact, on university campuses, it is our obligation 

to have that debate. There is no room for personal intimidation 

crime of the sort that we have heard about here. 

Senator INHOFE. That is very good. I am 30 seconds over, so Senator Lautenberg, you can go 30 seconds over. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. Martosko, are you a registered lobbyist? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. No, sir, I am not. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Is your organization supported by the Restaurant Association? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. No, sir, the Restaurant Association has no connection with us. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I thought you said that clients of your organization were affiliated. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. We do not have clients. The Center for Consumer 

Freedom is supported, in part, by private industry, which includes 

individual restaurant and food companies. But we are not, in any 

way, connected to the National Restaurant Association. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Brad Campbell, you have testified that 

there have been about 1,100 eco-terrorist incidents over the 3 decades. But in 2003 alone, there were more than 8,700 hate crimes, 

including 1,217 where people were attacked for their sexual orientation. 

Perhaps it is not fair to ask you this question. What could highlight eco-terrorism or attacks on those who pursue any kind activity, non-criminal? I mean, just listening to Dr. Skorton, your testi-
31

mony was balanced and very important. There is nothing more revolting than to see people interrupt research and science and buildings and life. I mean, these are terrible criminal acts. 

I think, Mr. Martosko, you ought to provide the information so 

we can nail these guys. Why do you not get it out there to the FBI? 

If your evidence and the statements you make are supported by 

fact, then why do you not promote punishing these people, getting 

them locked up? 

I mean, you make statements that suggest that, well, this 1 is 

part of this organization, and he is defending so-and-so. Does that 

mean that the organization is included in your definition of terrorism? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. It depends on which case you mean, Senator. In 

the case of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, I think 

when a U.S. Attorney is issued a finding of fact that the group’s 

president implicated herself in an arson, I think that includes the 

organization in the definition of terrorism. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, she ought to be punished. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I agree, and it is a mystery to me why she never 

was prosecuted. But I am not a law enforcement agent. My role is 

to provide accurate research and facts, and let gentlemen like you 

and law enforcement decide what to do with them. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. Campbell, do you see the leveling of this eco-terrorism as 

being the No. 1 domestic terror concern? 

Mr. CARROLL. Well, Senator, I would not necessarily dispute the 

testimony of the FBI or the ATF. But I think that testimony likely 

would have been the same in the view of our law enforcement officials, before September 11. 

What September 11 changed is the type of terrorists. In my view, 

it’s another form of eco-terrorism, trying to create an ecological impact that creates casualties and damage on a massive scale. It 

changed our sense of which problem was the most urgent, in terms 

of additional measures. 

Congress enacted additional measures with respect to these animal terrorist groups. I think the success of the indictment by our 

U.S. Attorney, Chris Christy, with respect to the SHAC group that 

the ATF and FBI mentioned earlier, is an example of that. 

My concern is that that fact, which I think was a fact before September 11, not distract us from the types of populations and communities that may be at risk, due to the absence of Federal safeguards in some of these other sectors. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I think I took it out of your realm. I asked 

the question because I am looking for some reinforcement here. 

When I look at what we have surrounding us, and how this Nation has responded to the fear or the anxiety of a terrorist attack, 

there is 1 place, as you know very well, Commissioner Campbell, 

that is described as the most dangerous 2-mile area as a target for 

terrorists in the country. Dr. Skorton, it is said by the Coast Guard 

that an attack on a chlorine plant that is there could kill as many 

as 12 million people. 

Mr. Chairman, we have railroads here, where these cars carry 

chlorine gas. It is believed here that if one of these is attacked and 

that gas escapes, that 5,000 people could be in danger. 
32

There is one thing I want to get straight here. That is, that I, 

in no way ever, condone any violence, no matter what the cause is. 

We are a Nation of laws, and by golly, we have a way to handle 

these things and we should. 

Dr. Skorton, yes, please? 

Dr. SKORTON. I did not mean to interrupt you. I wanted to make 

a comment. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, I am glad to hear from you. 

Dr. SKORTON. Well, forgive me, I think the sense of your statement is that there are some larger kinds of issues out there. I want 

to make one more point, strictly about the narrow focus that I am 

giving on animal research in the biomedical research domain. It is 

not product testing, but research. 

That is, I think one has to calculate or estimate the so-called opportunity cost of not doing the research, the opportunity cost on 

animal lives, the opportunity cost on human lives. 

I would submit that unfortunately although I cannot give you 

quantification of that opportunity cost, that it is massive. That for 

every single or generation of researcher that lives in a chilled environment and does not go forward to do research, that we are paying an opportunity cost that I would estimate could be calculated 

in many lives over the years, because of the huge number of discoveries that have been based in part, not in whole, but in part to animal research. 

So this is in no way to argue with the points that you were making, but just to mention the opportunity costs of the research not 

going forward, just for your consideration. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, Mr. Chairman, are we loose on time, 

until we have other visitors? 

Senator INHOFE. Let me go ahead and take my turn. If no one 

shows up, we will just pass it back and forth. Is that all right? All 

right, sir, thank you very much. 

Mr. McIntyre, we have a photo here of the construction site to 

which you referred. This was arson in an urban area of San Diego? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, it is called the Golden Triangle area. There 

are a lot of apartment and condominium units fairly close by, as 

well as office buildings. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, the question I would ask you is, under 

California law, it is my understanding under their Environmental 

Quality Act and other laws, that the citizens are provided ample 

opportunity to voice objections concerning new construction and all 

that. Is that correct, and did they do that? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. That is correct. Under the CEQA law that I 

talked about, citizens are given notice and the opportunity to participate when an Environmental Impact Report is being prepared. 

That is the most intensive report that can be prepared. There are 

other less intensive reports that can be done. But this project required the most intensive report. 

Also, if people from the public are concerned about the project or 

want to take positions opposing it, they can do so. They have rights 

to appeal the process, when it goes through the different agencies 

that do it. When the agencies complete their review—and in this 

case it would be the city of San Diego—and approve the EIR, then 

citizens also have a right, if they think it is inappropriately ap-
33

prove, to file civil litigation to contest that finding. We went 

through that whole process, a very involved process. 

Senator INHOFE. About how many hearings do you think there 

were? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Oh, in terms of the total number of hearings, we 

get in the range of about 4 or 5. Part of it also depends upon, if 

somebody files appeals or not. But we went through the process. 

Senator INHOFE. Did anyone with any association with ELF and 

ALF ever pose any objections at any of those hearings? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Not that we know of, no. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Martosko, what role do you believe that Dr. Steven Best 

plays for ALF? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Well, judging from his writings, I think it is fair 

to say that he is an enthusiastic supporter of every 1 of their tactics, regardless of how violent. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you believe he advocates criminally based 

activism? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I think it is a fact. It is clear from the record of 

his writings and his speeches that he advocates criminal activity. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you believe that Dr. Best and ALF and ELF 

and PETA target youth for membership in their movements? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. It is clear that in the case of the underground 

criminal elements, they target adolescents, generally. In the case of 

more aboveground groups like PETA, they target children as young 

as 6 years old, through the schools, through curriculums, and by 

propagandizing them outside of their own schools, as they walk 

home from school sometimes. Dr. Best, I think his influence is limited to college-age adolescents. But he is certainly targeting that 

age group, as well. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, certainly, this is something I was not 

aware of. You say that there is an effort also to motivate grade 

school kids? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I am not saying that PETA is motivating grade 

school kids to commit crimes. I am saying that they are motivating 

grade school kids to embrace an animal rights philosophy, which 

might in some cases lead these children to embrace criminal activity later in life. 

PETA’s activists camp outside of middle schools and elementary 

schools. They have done this in at least 30 States, intercepting kids 

as they walk to and from school, without the knowledge of their 

parents. 

In some cases, 2 Christmases ago, outside a performance of the 

Nutcracker, PETA activists looked for women wearing fur coats 

who had children with them, and thrust a graphic comic book into 

the children’s hands, which instructed the kids that ‘‘your mommy 

kills animals.’’

I encourage you to talk, if you have time, to Dr. Jeffrey Dolgan, 

who is the chief of Psychology at Children’s Hospital in Denver, 

who has spoken extensively about the impact of this on a child’s 

psychological development. 

In the case of Dr. Best, more pointed to your question, he sort 

of closes the loop. He closes the deal with the adolescents who are 

inclined to set fires and throw bombs. I think he seals the deal. 
34

Senator INHOFE. Do you know of any other mainstream organizations that have ties to criminally based activism? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Well, it depends on how loosely you want to define those ties. I mean, somebody here mentioned the Sierra Club 

earlier. That organization has a board member named Paul Watson, who himself told an animal rights convention 2 years ago that, 

‘‘There is nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win.’’

This is a man who trains people who wind up ALF defendants. 

He trained Rodney Coronado. He trained other folks on his boats 

at the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. So even the Sierra Club 

does have a link here, and I wish they would disavow that gentleman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Dr. Skorton, as I understand, you 

are a protector of free speech in the academic world. What are your 

thoughts on speech and rhetoric that advocates and incites violence? 

Dr. SKORTON. Well, as an example of how much of a supporter 

we are, at our university, we allowed Mr. Best to come and speak 

to our campus. He was invited by a student group on January 27, 

2005, when the terrorist occurred on November 14, 2004. 

A request was made to my office to prevent his appearing on 

campus, which I rejected, as evidence that I do think it is important to have open speech. We determined that Mr. Best was within 

First Amendment rights to speak on campus. 

I personally repudiated a lot of the things he said. If you would 

like to, I can read some of his statements that went to the record. 

But even without doing that, let me just say that I think it is very 

important that universities do not become closed enclaves of a particular opinion. Nonetheless, I will say that his statements were 

very strongly supportive of the worst violent acts. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, thank you very much. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Professor, let me commend you for your 

academic charge. It is not always pleasant when we hear things 

that people say that are repulsive to us and that we challenge. But 

unfortunately, the cost of academic freedom does include some of 

what we consider abuses, but I do not know whether they are lawbreaking. 

Mr. Martosko, you sit at this table, and I assume that you realize 

that you are under oath, even though you have not stood up and 

raised your hand. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Yes, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Now what did you say happened with Ms. 

Newkirk? She is the president of PETA. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. She is the president and co-founder. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What charge did you say was leveled 

against her? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I did not say a charge was leveled against her. 

What I said, Senator, was that in his sentencing document, in the 

case of Rodney Coronado, a portion of which I have submitted for 

the record, U.S. Attorney, Michael Detmer wrote that Ingrid 

Newkirk had foreknowledge of the arson at Michigan State University. 
35

Senator LAUTENBERG. Could she not have been prosecuted for 

aiding and abetting? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I think she should have been, sir. But I was not 

following the issue back then. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You make these accusations fairly loosely 

here. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. No, sir, the U.S. Attorney made the accusation. 

I am merely reporting it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Would you agree with him? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I have no position to agree or disagree. I am 

merely reporting the evidence, as read to the courts. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I want the record to show that you are just 

reporting on that. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Yes, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That you had no basis, in fact, to suggest 

that she was violating the law in any way. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. It is only what the U.S. Attorney reported, which 

was that she arranged ahead of time for a convicted arsonist to 

send her materials. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Did you write to that particular U.S. Attorney, suggesting that they prosecute? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I am sorry, say that again. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Did you write or call him to encourage the 

prosecution of Ms. Newkirk? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I have communicated with the U.S. Attorney’s office, but that was long since that case was closed. I am sure the 

statute of limitations would preclude her prosecution at this point. 

This is now 10 years after. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So it was dealt with effectively? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I would disagree. But I think certainly there was 

an opportunity to deal with it effectively that was lost. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am curious about something. Dr. 

Skorton, I am a contributor to something called the Lautenberg 

Center for Cancer Research. It is out of the country. It is a very 

effective organization. 

It is based in Israel. A scientist from New Jersey moved there 

and is a friend of mine. I funded their operation in the beginning. 

It is very good basic research. As you know, sometimes they will 

use radical treatments for someone who is terminally ill, to try and 

see if they can help someone else in the future. 

So I frankly like the way that you presented the question about 

experimentation with animals, etc. There is room for debate on 

that question. There is, and I am not proposing it, believe me. 

But the fact of the matter is, heaven forbid that it was one of 

my children or one of my grandchildren, and they knew that by 

testing a material on a particular rodent that responded physiologically similar to a human, I would say, go get it. I, quite frankly, 

would have to say that. 

So I have little or no patience with these violent acts committed 

in whatever name they come. The only thing I am concerned about 

is whether to elevate this to the No. 1 domestic terror issue. Our 

Department of Homeland Security has a budget of over $40 billion. 

This is in anticipation that we are still not doing the job as well 

as we would like to. 
36

I do not understand the ugliness of these pictures. It is just like 

we have seen ugly pictures of other kinds of destruction. It qualifies to make this a pursuit of our country. I would like to catch 

every one of those. 

My son, Senator Inhofe, is in Colorado. He climbs and hikes, and 

he works in the mountains. When they burned the facility in Vale, 

CO, it was heartbreaking. This was a beautiful thing, and some 

part of that property is Government property. 

The case was never closed. I called the FBI, because I was there 

to see if they would take the case. They did, and they were never 

able to solve it. It was believed to be some eco-terrorist group who 

was protesting whatever the cause was. So I thank you for your 

open-mindedness. 

Dr. SKORTON. I am not in the position, and I have no ability or 

skill or knowledge to comment on whether this is No. 1 or No. 2. 

I will garner the floor briefly to thank you for your support of 

bio-medical research that you are doing. I, too, have worked with 

colleagues at the Technian for years. 

Your example of cancer treatment is one in which all of these 

modalities have to come together. I have had the honor of being 

consultant to the FAA for a decade in medical devices. In cancer 

research, there has to be computer modeling. There has to be basic 

research that involves cells. There has to be some animal research. 

There has to be some human research, and there has to be followup of drugs and medical devices. 

My point is only, at the risk of being redundant, that a well organized dialog across the country of all involved parties toward the 

goal of improving the corps of knowledge, in animal health and 

human health, will bear and will produce much disagreement on 

many things. It should be done in the context of the way we do 

things in this country, and that it is openly taking responsibility 

for our views, and moving things forward in that fashion. 

Once again, I thank you for your personal support for the research endeavor. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, and bless our Nation of laws. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. We will have to end in 4 minutes. Senator 

Lautenberg, let me just get in here for a final couple of questions. 

First, I just want to give you the assurance, Commissioner 

Campbell, that we have devoted a lot of time on chemical security. 

That is not the subject of this hearing today. We have actually 

passed out new chemical security bills. Now with the reorganization, they have taken that from us and it is now under DHS. So 

they will continue the work that we have started. 

Mr. McIntyre, you mentioned that you could read. Why don’t you 

select one statement, just so we can hear it here, as opposed to getting it from the record, of Dr. Best. You mentioned that there are 

some statements that you had. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. That was not me. 

Senator INHOFE. I am so sorry. Dr. Skorton, would you do that, 

please? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Could I speak for a second, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 
37

Senator LAUTENBERG. Unanimous consent request that the opening statement of Senator Obama and other members who could not 

be here today be included in the record. 

Senator INHOFE. No objection. 

[The referenced statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

In America, we have the right to disagree over personal beliefs whether they are 

religious, philosophical or moral and to express those beliefs peaceably. We have the 

right to assemble and to demonstrate. However, we do not have the right to destroy 

others’ property and to commit acts of violence in the name of free speech. 

Those who engage in such acts should be punished to the full extent of the law. 

We need to support our law enforcement officials in their efforts to apprehend these 

criminals and bring them to justice. 

However, in our quest to apprehend these criminals, I hope we are not headed 

down the path of infringing on the ability of legitimate advocacy organizations to 

express their opinions and to raise funds in order to do so. I do not want Americans 

to equate groups that advocate violence with mainstream environmental organizations. 

We also need to put these violent acts into context. The FBI has indicated a downward trend in the number of crimes committed by these groups approximately 60 

in 2004. While I want these crimes stopped, I do not want people to think that the 

threat from these organizations is equivalent to other crimes faced by Americans 

every day. According to the FBI, there were over 7,400 hate crimes committed in 

2003 half of which were racially motivated. More directly relevant to this committee, 

the FBI reports 450 pending environmental crimes cases involving worker 

endangerment or threats to public health or the environment. 

So, while I appreciate the Chairman’s interest in these fringe groups, I urge the 

Committee to focus its attention on larger environmental threats, such as the dangerously high blood lead levels in hundreds of thousands of children. With all due 

respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Committee’s time would be better spent learning why EPA has not promulgated regulations to deal with lead paint in remodeled 

homes. Such an oversight hearing could have a significant impact on improving the 

lives of children all over the country. 

Thank you.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Dr. SKORTON. Forgive me for shuffling through my papers. These 

are just a couple of things that Mr. Best said on January 27, 2005, 

when he appeared with our permission and support at the University of Iowa.

‘‘We should focus on the real aggressors, the real perpetrators of violence. That 

is what people do to animals inside laboratories. That is the real violence. That is 

the real crime.’’

Then according to just war theory,

‘‘Violence is acceptable, one, when it is the last of all alternatives that have been 

explored; and two, when the minimal amount of violence necessary to resolve the 

situation has been used.’’

In direct answer to a question, he said,

‘‘Do I support a tax on laboratories?’’ ‘‘Folks, I am not going to lie to you. Yes, 

I do. Yes, I do.’’

Senator INHOFE. I think that is adequate. I think that gets the 

point across. I would like to have you submit anything else for the 

record. We are down to a minute and a half now. 

Again, I apologize to the first and the second panel. We had no 

control. Either party has the right to stop us from meeting, and the 

Democrats have chosen to do that. So we have to stop in a minute 

and a half. 
38

Do you have anything in 1 minute, David, that you would like 

to say, that you did not get a chance to say, that you are anxious 

to say? 

Mr. MARTOSKO. Yes, sir, I want the committee to note and be 

aware that the growing movement of ALF and ELF terrorism can 

be legitimately considered a national security threat. The 2 most 

recent ELF spokesperson have formed a new group, which they 

characterize as a revolutionary movement to overthrow the U.S. 

Government. 

In a news story that we are all going to hear about very soon, 

KCRA Television in Sacramento is reporting now that yesterday, 

when investigators were investigating an ELF attack on some vehicles, including slashed tires and graffiti, they found graffiti nearby 

which read, ‘‘Bomb the White House.’’ This is disturbing, and I 

think if we let this get out of control, we are all going to be sorry 

later. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, sir, after this is over, I want you to 

give me any evidence you have that uses either ‘‘Bomb the White 

House’’ or your final statement there. 

Mr. MARTOSKO. I would be more than happy to submit that to 

you, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good, well, I thank very much the panelists for coming. Again, we wanted to have more time for you, but 

it did not work out that way. This is a very significant subject. 

There will be questions for the record that will be submitted to 

you folks, and we will ask you to respond to those questions, not 

just the Members that were here, but any other Members who may 

be on this committee. We are timely adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF JOHN LEWIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FEDERAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Good morning Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, and members of the 

Committee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear today and to discuss 

the threat posed by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists in this country, as 

well as the measures the FBI and its partners are taking to address this threat. 

One of today’s most serious domestic terrorism threats come from special interest 

extremist movements such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign. Adherents to these movements aim to resolve specific issues by using criminal ‘‘direct action’’ against individuals or companies believed to be abusing or exploiting animals 

or the environment. 

‘‘Direct action’’ is often criminal activity that destroys property or causes economic 

loss to a targeted company. Traditional targets have ranged from, but have not been 

limited to, research laboratories to restaurants, fur farmers to forestry services. Extremists have used arson, bombings, theft, animal releases, vandalism, and office 

takeovers to achieve their goals. 

The distinctions between constitutionally protected advocacy and violent, criminal 

activity are extremely important to recognize, and law enforcement officials should 

be solely concerned with those individuals who pursue animal rights or environmental protection through force, violence, or criminal activity. Law enforcement only 

becomes involved when volatile talk turns into criminal activity. Unfortunately, the 

FBI has seen a significant amount of such criminal activity. From January 1990 to 

June 2004, animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for 

more than 1,200 criminal incidents, resulting in millions of dollars in damage and 

monetary loss. 

While most animal rights and eco-extremists have refrained from violence targeting human life, the FBI has observed troubling signs that this is changing. We 

have seen an escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics. One extremist recently said, 
39

‘‘If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person 

can only be stopped in 1 way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally 

justifiable solution.’’

Attacks are also growing in frequency and size. Harassing phone calls and vandalism now co-exist with improvised explosive devices and personal threats to employees. ELF’s target list has expanded to include sports utility vehicle dealerships 

and new home developers. We believe these trends will persist, particularly within 

the environmental movement, as extremists continue to combat what they perceive 

as ‘‘urban sprawl.’’

Preventing such criminal activity has become increasingly difficult, in large part 

because extremists in these movements are very knowledgeable about the letter of 

the law and the limits of law enforcement. Moreover, they are highly autonomous. 

Lists of targets and instructions on making incendiary devices are posted on the 

Internet, but criminal incidents are carried out by individuals or small groups acting unilaterally. Criminal activity by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists in 

particular requires relatively minor amounts of equipment and minimal funding. 

Extremists of these movements adhere to strict security measures in both their communications and their operations. 

The FBI has developed a strong response to domestic terrorism threats. Together 

with our partners, we are working to detect, disrupt, and dismantle the animal 

rights and environmental extremist movements that are involved in criminal activity. 

Our efforts are headed by a headquarters-based team of national intelligence analysts, program managers, and seasoned field agents. We draw on the resources of 

our Terrorist Financing Operations Section to support field investigations into domestic terrorism, just as we do for international terrorism investigations. We also 

draw upon our expertise in the area of communication analysis to provide investigative direction. 

Second, we have strengthened our intelligence capabilities. Since 2003, we have 

disseminated 64 raw intelligence reports to our partners pertaining to animal rights 

extremism and eco-terrorism activity. In addition, since 2004 we have disseminated 

19 strategic intelligence assessments to our Federal, State and local counterparts. 

And we have developed an intelligence requirement set for animal rights/eco-terrorism, enabling us to better collect, analyze, and share information. 

Finally, we have strengthened our partnerships. We have combined our expertise 

and resources with those of our Federal, State and local law enforcement partners 

nationwide through our 103 Joint Terrorism Task Forces. We have increased training for JTTF members, and have strong liaison with foreign law enforcement agencies. 

Our challenges are significant, but so are our successes. Currently, 35 FBI offices 

have over 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights/eco-terrorist activities. Since the beginning of 2004, the FBI and its partners have made a number 

of high-profile arrests of individuals involved with animal rights extremism or ecoterrorism. These arrests have led to several successful prosecutions. 

Let me give you a brief snapshot of our recent successes: 

In 2005, 

• An individual who had been a fugitive, was arrested and charged with 2 counts 

of Animal Enterprise Terrorism for a series of animal releases at mink farms in 

1997; 

• Three individuals were arrested for a series of arsons and attempted arsons of 

construction sites in California; and 

• One individual was arrested for the 2003 arson of a McDonald’s in Seattle. 

In 2004, 

• Two individuals were arrested for arson on the campus of Brigham Young University in Utah;

• Seven individuals associated with SHAC were arrested in New Jersey, California, and Washington State;

• An individual was arrested and indicted for arsons of logging and construction 

equipment;

• William Cottrell was indicted and convicted last month in California for conspiracy to commit arson, seven counts of arson; and

• Two individuals were arrested in Virginia during an attempt to firebomb a car 

dealership. 

These are just some of our many accomplishments, but we have much more work 

ahead of us. One of our greatest challenges has been the lack of Federal criminal 

statutes to address multi-state campaigns of intimidation, threats, and damage designed to shut down legitimate businesses. 
40

On the legislative front, we are interested in working with you to examine Federal 

criminal statutes, specifically 18 USC 43, ‘‘Animal Enterprise Terrorism.’’ The statute provides a framework for the prosecution of animal rights extremists, but in 

practice, it does not cover many of the criminal acts that extremists have committed. 

Additionally, the statute only applies to criminal acts committed by animal rights 

extremists, but does not address criminal activity related to eco-terrorism. 

Therefore, the existing statutes may need refinements to make them more applicable to current animal rights/eco-extremist actions and to give law enforcement 

more effective means to bring criminals to justice. 

Investigating and preventing animal rights extremism and eco-terrorism is one of 

the FBI’s highest domestic terrorism priorities. We are committed to working with 

our partners to disrupt and dismantle these movements, and to bring to justice 

those who commit crime in the name of animal or environmental rights. Chairman 

Inhofe and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the 

challenges we face and the ways we can overcome them. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

RESPONSE OF JOHN E. LEWIS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question. It appears that the FBI has categorized potential terrorist threats based 

on whether the group is a domestic group or an international group. Can you explain why infrastructure security issues such as wastewater treatment plants, 

chemical producing facilities, and nuclear power plants are not included in the 

realm of domestic terrorist threats? 

Response. While clearly the threat of infrastructure attacks can originate from either domestic or international terrorists, the FBI does not align its investigative priorities based on potential targets or actual attacks. Investigative priorities are instead established based on the individuals or groups responsible for violations of the 

law, and our intelligence collection and investigative work is predicated on criminal 

activities. 

Infrastructure protection is important to the FBI, and clearly the United States 

infrastructure is a possible target of attack by domestic terrorists. The FBI assists 

in the assessment of vulnerabilities, the enhancement of security, and the coordination of law enforcement response plans through its participation in national and 

local liaison programs related to infrastructure protection. The quality of this assistance is significantly enhanced by the FBI’s numerous outreach programs, through 

which Agents work closely with officials in the nuclear power, waste treatment, and 

chemical industries. 

RESPONSES OF JOHN E. LEWIS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. You have testified that there have been about 1,100 eco-terrorist incidents in more than 3 decades. But in 2003 alone, there were more than 8,700 hate 

crimes, including 1,217 where people were attacked for their sexual orientation. 

Why are attacks on property more of a concern than attacks on people based on bigotry? 

Response. This question implies that attacks on property pose no threat to individual safety, whereas in fact attacks on property can have a devastating impact 

on lives, as demonstrated by the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This danger is as inherent in ecologically motivated terrorism as politically 

motivated terrorism. The FBI does not have more ‘‘concern’’ for one crime than another, but we are cognizant of the qualitative differences in the ramifications of various crimes. 

While the FBI has a broad mission with varied and competing challenges, Director Mueller has established the FBI’s priorities according to the interaction of three 

factors: (1) the significance of the threat to the security of the United States as expressed by the President in National Security Presidential Decision Directive 26; (2) 

the priority the American public places on various threats; and (3) the degree to 

which addressing the threat falls most exclusively within the FBI’s jurisdiction. Ecoterrorism has cost the United States millions of dollars in property damage and presents the potential for significant loss of life. Because of this, the FBI continues to 

place eco-terrorism as a top investigative priority. This does not preclude the FBI 

from aggressively conducting civil rights and ‘‘color of law’’ investigations, including 
41

the investigation of violations of Federal hate crime laws. The first five FBI investigative priorities are: 

1. Protect the United States from terrorist attacks. 

2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage. 

3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology 

crimes. 

4. Combat public corruption at all levels. 

5. Protect civil rights.

Question 2. It is my understanding that the number of individual animal-rights 

activists connected to such crimes is extremely small. Do you argue that legitimate 

organizations should not be tarnished by the acts of these criminals? 

Response. While the number of individual animal-rights activists connected to 

acts of terrorism has been proportionally small to date, the FBI must investigate 

all reported incidents of terrorism and determine whether those involved in these 

incidents are associated with terrorist groups. In the course of such investigations, 

it may be necessary to examine the activities of individuals associated with legitimate organizations. Legitimate organizations should not be tarnished by criminal 

conduct undertaken in the name of animal rights or environmentalism so long as 

those organizations do not offer support, either tangible or intangible, to the commission of those criminal acts. While the FBI regrets any harm to the reputations 

of legitimate organizations, we must ensure that our investigations are thorough, 

and this thoroughness includes examination of those who may be providing 

logistical, financial, or other support to those who commit these crimes. 

RESPONSES OF JOHN E. LEWIS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR OBAMA

Question 1a. The written testimony provided to the Committee referred to eco-terrorism as one of the most serious domestic terrorism threats in the United States 

today, and Mr. Lewis’ oral testimony referred to it as the No. 1 domestic terrorist 

threat. Yet, the FBI’s own statistics indicate that there have been, on average, less 

than 100 criminal incidents per year over the past 14 years. How many FTE nationwide does the FBI devote to eco-terrorism? 

Response. While our time capture system does allow us to determine how many 

Agent hours are dedicated to investigating domestic terrorism activity generally, we 

are not able to accurately identify the amount of time dedicated specifically to investigations of eco-terrorism. The FBI calculates ‘‘full-time equivalent’’ (FTE) for Special Agents based on a 50-hour work week rather than the 40-hour work week used 

for other Federal employees. In fiscal year (FY) 2004, the FBI devoted 610 ‘‘Agent 

FTEs’’ to its Domestic Terrorism Program (this includes only ‘‘street’’ Agents, and 

does not include, for example, their supervisors, FBI Headquarters personnel, analysts, or others involved in this program). Many of these Special Agents are assigned 

to Joint Terrorism Task Forces or domestic terrorism squads and are called upon 

to investigate a variety of domestic terrorism matters, including eco-terrorism.

Question 1b. Are hate crimes considered domestic terrorism? 

Response. As defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2331, acts of domestic terrorism are criminal 

acts that appear to be intended ‘‘to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,’’ ‘‘to 

influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,’’ or ‘‘to affect the 

conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.’’ Although hate crimes generally involve acts of personal malice directed at individuals, 

and therefore typically lack the political or social motivation inherent in acts of domestic terrorism, the intent of these crimes is reviewed in order to determine 

whether they constitute acts of domestic terrorism.

Question 1c. How many FTE nationwide does the FBI devote to hate crimes? 

Response. Currently the FBI devotes 153 ‘‘Agent FTEs’’ to its Civil Rights Program (as with the Domestic Terrorism Program statistics provided above, this includes only the ‘‘street’’ Agents who investigate these crimes). The Civil Rights Program consists of 4 subprograms: Hate Crimes, Color of Law, Involuntary Servitude 

and Slavery, and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Over the 

most recent 4-year period (2001–2004), the FBI has devoted an average of 21 ‘‘Agent 

FTEs’’ to hate-related investigations per year. As noted above, the FBI calculates 

FTE for Special Agents based on a 50-hour work week.

Question 1d. On average, how many criminal incidents per year involve hate 

crimes? 

Response. The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) indicates that the average number 

of reported hate crimes during the period from fiscal year (FY) 2000 through fiscal 

year 2003 was 5,996. (The UCR collects data from nearly 17,000 voluntary law en-
42

forcement agency participants.) In 2001, there were 9,730 reported hate crimes, 

1,667 more than the previous year and 2,268 more than the subsequent year. This 

spike in reported hate crimes in 2001 was attributed to the events of September 11, 

2001.

Question 1e. Are gang-related crimes considered domestic terrorist acts? 

Response. As indicated in response to subpart b, above, ‘‘domestic terrorism’’ is 

defined by statute. Gang-related crimes are typically not considered acts of domestic 

terrorism because they generally involve acts undertaken for personal power or financial gain and lack the political or social motivation inherent in acts of domestic 

terrorism.

Question 1f. How many FTE nationwide does the FBI devote to gang-related 

crimes? 

Response. Over the most recent 5-year period (2000–2004), the FBI devoted an average of 267 ‘‘Agent FTEs’’ to gang-related investigations (as with the program statistics provided above, this includes only the ‘‘street’’ Agents who investigate these 

crimes). In fiscal year (FY) 2004, the ‘‘Agent FTE’’ devoted to gang-related investigations was approximately 435, which represents a significant increase in gang-related 

investigations during that year. (As noted above, the FBI calculates FTE for Special 

Agents based on a 50-hour work week.) This increase was the result of the FBI’s 

National Gang Strategy, the elevated emphasis placed on gang investigations, and 

the expansion of FBI-led Safe Streets Task Forces that investigate violent gangs.

Question 1g. On average, how many criminal incidents per year involve gang-related violence? 

Response. While the FBI does not track the investigation of gang-related violence 

in this precise way, we do track the number of gang-related investigations opened 

by the FBI in its 56 Field Offices. Over the most recent 5-year period (2000–2004), 

the FBI opened an average of 361 gang-related investigations per year. In fiscal 

year 2004, 370 gang-related investigations were opened.

Question 2. How does the FBI determine whether individual criminal acts are domestic terrorist acts or ordinary acts of crime? 

Response. Through the investigative process, the FBI determines whether the intent of a criminal act was to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the 

policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government. If so, the criminal act is considered an act of terrorism. Acts of domestic terrorism are generally committed with a political or philosophical motivation in an attempt to effect political or societal change. In some instances, it is difficult to discern immediately whether a crime is one of domestic terrorism or is strictly criminal 

in nature. In these instances, the FBI would, as part of its investigation, attempt 

to identify the motive in order to determine the nature of the crime.

Question 3. Has the FBI ever convicted any representatives of any environmental 

organization other than ALF, ELF or SHAC of domestic terrorism or as an accessory 

to the crime? 

Response. When an act that may be considered ‘‘domestic terrorism’’ is committed, 

as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2331, the defendant is often prosecuted for 

the underlying ‘‘traditional’’ criminal violations (such as firearms violations, arson, 

or explosives violations), particularly when the defendant’s motivation is difficult to 

prove. In addition, proof that a crime was intended ‘‘to intimidate or coerce a civilian population’’ or ‘‘to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion’’ does not require demonstration that the defendant was affiliated with a particular group, so any such affiliation may not be a matter of record. 

We can offer, anecdotally, that four members of a group calling itself the Evan 

Mecham Eco-Terrorist International Conspiracy (EMETIC) were indicted in 1989–

1990 on various Federal charges related to planned attacks on an Arizona ski resort 

and on Arizona, California, and Colorado energy generating facilities, including nuclear power plants. Each of the 4 was convicted, pursuant to a plea of guilty, on 

one of these Federal charges (the charges were different for different defendants, 

but all of the charges were for ‘‘traditional’’ crimes, rather than for ‘‘domestic terrorism’’ related crimes), and they were sentenced to serve up to six years in Federal 

prison and to pay up to $19,821 in fines.

Question 4. How many abortion rights-related crimes have been committed over 

the past 14 years? 

Response. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act became effective 

in 1994. The FBI has opened 214 investigations pursuant to this Act, broken down 

by year as follows:
43

Year Number of Abortion-Rights 

Related Crimes Reported 

1994 ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

1995 ..................................................................................................................................................... 25

1996 ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

1997 ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

1998 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

1999 ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

2000 ..................................................................................................................................................... 59

2001 ..................................................................................................................................................... 43

2002 ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

2003 ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

2004 ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

STATEMENT OF CARSON CARROLL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

Good morning Chairman Inhofe, Senator Jeffords and members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the significant contributions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) relating to the investigation of violent crimes perpetrated by animal rights and environmental extremists. With our law enforcement partners, we are diligently working 

together to protect America. 

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) was formed by British anarchist Ronnie Lee 

in Great Britain in 1976 as an outgrowth of the Band of Mercy and the Hunt Saboteurs. ALF is primarily concerned with animal rights issues. ALF became active in 

the United States in 1979 after claiming responsibility for the release of five animals from the New York University Medical Center. The American ALF was the 

first and most active offshoot outside Britain. Until 1987, most ALF ‘‘direct actions’’ 

were limited to break-ins and vandalism in efforts to release animals from various 

university and research facilities around the country. However, after 1987, ALF activities have included arson and other explosives incidents. 

The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) was established in 1992 in Brighton, England, 

from members of the activist environmental group, ‘‘Earth First!’’ These radical 

members dedicated themselves to saving the environment by advocating criminal 

acts over legal protest as a means of advancing their environmental agenda and beliefs. The first ELF action in the United States occurred in October 1996 with an 

arson attack on a U.S. Forest Service truck in Oregon’s Willamette National Forest 

and was followed by the 1997 arson attack at the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Wild Horse Corral in Burns, Oregon. 

Traditionally, the agendas of the two movements have overlapped, and in 1993 

ELF declared solidarity with ALF in an open communique ́. Since then, there has 

been a convergence of agendas. Spokespersons for each movement dually claim that 

neither maintains a central organization or membership guide. They do claim many 

autonomous groups of people known only as ‘‘cells,’’ located around the world that 

act on behalf of ELF and ALF. A common misperception is that names or labels of 

a movement imply the existence of groups. ELF and ALF are more accurately portrayed as ideological movements, or causes, not groups. Both ELF and ALF assert 

that any individuals who wish to carry out an action do so based upon their own 

personal conscience. 

Fundamentally, each movement shares common characteristics. They tend to engage in criminal activities designed to make a direct adverse economic impact 

against the chosen target. Animal rights extremists conduct raids of mink, chinchilla, and fox farms throughout the United States. Breeding records are often removed and/or destroyed in these acts, causing significant economic losses for the fur 

industry. Acts of vandalism committed in the name of ELF and ALF include graffiti, 

super-glued locks, destruction of research records and equipment, damaged pipes 

and clogged toilets. ELF extremists frequently engage in sabotage of industrial or 

construction equipment. Acts include removing primary nuts and bolts from machinery, tree spiking, pouring sand or sugar in gas tanks, and cutting hydraulic lines 

or cables. 

The most worrisome trend to law enforcement and private industry alike has been 

the increase in willingness by these movements to resort to the use of incendiary 

and explosive devices. The use of incendiary devices has become a popular tactic employed by ELF and ALF. ATF field agents and our law enforcement partners, coupled with the expertise of ATF’s laboratories, have shown that suspected or known 

ELF and ALF sponsored arsons have been carried out using an assortment of de-
44

vices described in ELF and ALF literature and on the Internet. The devices range 

from a primitive and easily constructed design to sophisticated electronically ignited 

devices. ELF and ALF serial arsonists are conscious of the potential ignition failure 

of the devices and have deployed multiple devices at the target locations to ensure 

that at least some damage will occur. Instructions for the creation and use of these 

timed incendiary devices represent a fraction of the instructional material available 

to ELF and ALF members, and society as a whole, on the Internet. 

ELF and ALF are engaged in substantial intelligence gatherings against animal 

or environmental businesses and share this information at rallies, protests and on 

the Internet. They also secure employment with an animal or environmental business for the purpose of gaining inside intelligence for raids or other forms of illegal 

‘‘direct action.’’

ELF and ALF activists wear gloves during their illegal activity to avoid leaving 

behind fingerprints, and wear non-descript clothing to include hoods and hats to 

hide their identity. They are knowledgeable of the implications of DNA evidence. 

Also, in the event bolt cutters are used during an attack, they are instructed to 

sharpen the bolt cutters afterwards in order to thwart law enforcement tool mark 

analysis. 

ELF and ALF activists rely upon the publicity generated by their attacks to bring 

attention to their causes, and thereby win converts for their movements. However, 

ELF and ALF’s ‘‘direct action’’ is unique as they typically use fire as their weapon. 

Once the fire is set, complete control is lost by the ELF/ALF member and the outcome is determined by fire progression itself. There have been several instances 

where ‘‘close calls’’ have occurred for first responders as a result of ELF and ALFrelated violent actions. At the Boise Cascade Office in Monmouth, OR, the scene of 

an ELF arson incident, the Chief of the local volunteer fire department pulled back 

his firefighters just before the roof collapsed. An ALF member initiated an incendiary device at the Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative, in Sandy, Utah, without 

knowing that the caretaker of the facility was asleep in the next room, but luckily, 

the device failed to function. 

Since 1987, ATF has initiated over 100 investigations related to ELF and ALF 

incidents. Some of the investigations involved explosives incidents, as well as, acts 

of arson. While the number of ELF and ALF incidents has fluctuated from year to 

year, the magnitude of the incidents appears to be on the rise with a number of 

high-damage arsons occurring since 1999. Between 1999 and 2005, ATF opened 58 

investigations related to ELF and ALF acts of violence. 

Using existing statutes, Title 18, United States Code (USC), Section 844, Federal 

Arson, ATF has had noteworthy successes with regard to ELF and ALF investigations. Most notably in 1992, ATF Certified Fire Investigators (CFIs) and the ATF 

laboratory, working jointly with law enforcement partners, investigated and successfully prosecuted Rodney Coronado, who received a 57-month sentence for actions 

tied to various ALF crimes throughout the Pacific Northwest and Michigan. In 2000, 

an arson incident at Joe Romania Chevrolet in Eugene, Oregon, resulted in the destruction of several sports utility vehicles. An ATF CFI and the Eugene Police Department, supported by the ATF laboratory, contributed to the successful prosecution of Jeff Leurs and Craig Marshal for violating State arson laws. Leurs received 

a 23-year sentence in State prison and Marshal received 6 years in State prison. 

In 2004, ATF CFIs and an ATF accelerant detection K-9 were involved in the investigation and prosecution of William Jensen Cottrell for his ELF-related crimes in 

West Covina, CA. Cottrell, a PhD candidate at California Institute of Technology, 

received a 100-month sentence and was ordered to pay $3.5 million in restitution 

as a result of his conviction for arson, Title 18, USC, Section 844 (i), and conspiracy. 

In 2004, the ATF National Response Team, working with law enforcement partners, 

was called in to investigate a fire at the Stock Lumber Supply Yard in West Jordan, 

Utah. An ATF CFI, through an origin and cause investigation, determined that an 

arson had occurred. The case culminated in the conviction of Justus Allen Ireland, 

who pled guilty to violating Federal arson laws, Title 18, USC, Section 844 (i). Ireland was sentenced to 87 months in prison and ordered to pay $1,643,692.80 in restitution as a result of his acts of violence in the name of ELF. At the time of Ireland’s arrest, he was on life probation for sexual assault of a minor. 

Mr. Chairman, the Anti-Arson Act of 1982 gave ATF broad-based jurisdiction in 

Federal arson offenses. ATF’s arson enforcement efforts include preventing arson, 

providing effective post-incident response, and reducing the community impact of 

crimes involving fire. As a former Special Agent in Charge of the Seattle Field Division which covers the Pacific Northwest region, and now one of the Deputy Assistant Directors of ATF Field Operations, I have seen and continue to see, first-hand, 

our efforts to reduce violent crime and protect the public. Through our dedicated 

work, the men and women of ATF are improving the lives of Americans. Our efforts 
45

produce real results with safer neighborhoods where all of us, including children 

and senior citizens, can live without fear. In our continued effort to protect America, 

ATF has a number of programs designed to make an impact on violent crime. 

The long-term strategic goal of ATF’s arson program is to provide effective investigative and technical expertise, rapid response assistance, and state-of-the-art 

training to reduce the impact of violent crimes that involve fire. ATF investigative 

efforts are generally focused on arsons of Federal interest, more broadly defined as 

arsons affecting interstate commerce. 

The agents participating in ATF’s Certified Fire Investigator Program are at the 

forefront of fire investigation. These agents are federally trained and certified as origin and cause investigators. These CFIs are able to qualify as expert witnesses in 

fire origin and cause determinations. The CFI program has received national and 

international acclaim. 

ATF’s laboratories are an invaluable resource in perfecting ATF cases and in serving as a resource for State and local law enforcement. ATF’s laboratory system is 

composed of the National Laboratory Center (NLC) in Ammendale, MD, and the regional laboratories in Atlanta, GA, and Walnut Creek, CA. One of ATF’s fire investigation resources is the Fire Research Laboratory (FRL). Also located in 

Ammendale, MD, it is a one-of-a-kind fire test center with the capability of replicating initial fire scenarios approaching a quarter acre in size, to scale, and under 

controlled conditions allowing for detailed analysis. This facility is the only such facility in the United States that is dedicated to providing case support in fire investigations using forensic fire science. 

In addition, ATF Special Agents investigate bombings, unlawful distribution of explosives, thefts of explosives and other explosives violations. ATF has explosives and 

arson groups nationwide, each consisting of Special Agents, CFIs, and CESs, as well 

as State and local police and fire personnel. Special Agent CESs are among the most 

experienced, best-trained explosives experts in the Federal Government. 

ATF has other experts in the field of explosives, including Explosive Enforcement 

Officers (EEOs) and Industry Operations Investigators. EEOs provide technical assistance and support in explosives matters, and Industry Operations Investigators 

conduct inspections of Federal explosives licensees and permittees. 

ATF maintains the Arson and Explosives National Repository (AENR), the country’s most comprehensive set of data describing fire and explosion incidents. ATF 

is also using the latest information management technology to make case information available to law enforcement nationwide through the Bomb and Arson Tracking 

System (BATS). This program facilitates and promotes the collection and dissemination of fire, arson, and explosives incidents and information among participating 

agencies. 

ATF continues to share its expertise by training Federal, State, local, military, 

and international bomb technicians and investigators in Explosives Disposal and Investigation Techniques at the National Center for Explosives Training and Research 

(NCETR). ATF offers numerous advanced courses related to explosives disposal and 

post-blast investigation techniques at the NCETR. 

Several of ATF’s programs, such as the National Response Team (NRT) and the 

Accelerant Detection and Explosives Detection Canine Programs, strengthen our efforts in explosives and arson investigations. They contribute to our missions of reducing violent crime and protecting the public. In the wake of a major fire or explosives incident, law enforcement investigators can rely on the expertise and advanced 

technology of ATF’s NRT. Capable of responding within 24 hours to major explosives 

or fire incidents anywhere in the country, NRT members work at reconstructing the 

scene, identifying the seat of the blast or origin and cause of the fire, conducting 

interviews, sifting through debris to obtain evidence related to the explosion and/

or fire, assisting with the ensuing investigation, and providing expert court testimony. 

ATF’s Explosives and Accelerant Detection Canine Program also plays a critical 

role in ensuring public safety. ATF’s unique training methodology enables its 34 explosives detection canines to locate explosives and gunpowder sidue in many forms, 

for example, Improvised Explosives Devices (IEDs), post-blast debris, firearms, ammunition, bulk explosives, and shell casings. The canines can detect explosives from 

the five explosives categories. Sixty ATF trained and certified accelerant detection 

canines help to identify potential points of origin at a fire scene. 

ATF fosters innovation and cooperation through liaison efforts and through research and development efforts. ATF employees hold key positions in many prestigious professional organizations. Since 1990, an ATF agent has chaired the Arson 

and Explosives Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Similarly, ATF has maintained outstanding relationships with the International Associa-
46

tion of Bomb Technicians and Investigators, the International Association of Arson 

Investigators and the National Bomb Squad Commanders Advisory Board. 

At ATF, we believe that working together is not just a good strategy, it is a matter of national security. Our agency has a long history of collaborating effectively 

with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and they consistently 

turn to ATF because of our expertise and our commitment to partnerships. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of 

the men and women of ATF, I thank you for your support of our crucial work. Year 

after year, we continue to stop those whose violent and criminal behavior threatens 

the peace of our communities. For many years, we have investigated major explosives incidents and major arsons, and have shared our knowledge with other law 

enforcement personnel through extensive training programs and effective partnerships. Yet I believe that our greatest achievements are still to come. We have made 

much progress but we know there is much more to do. We are determined to succeed in our missions of reducing violent crime, preventing terrorism, and protecting 

the public. 

I look forward to responding to any questions you may have. 

RESPONSES OF CARSON W. CARROLL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR OBAMA

Question 1. How many FTE nationwide does the ATF currently devote to eco-terrorism? 

Response. ATF dedicates approximately 25 percent of its resources toward arson 

and explosives related issues, and does not track FTE’s attributed specifically to ecoterrorist crimes. ATF responds to fires and explosions, and if evidence is present, 

classifies them as arson, bombings or accidents. ATF investigators then follow the 

evidence to determine who may have been responsible for any crimes committed. In 

some cases, the act on its face may appear as though it was related to eco-terrorism, 

but evidence has proven to the contrary. A good example was the series of arsons 

that destroyed 10 unoccupied new homes in Charles County, Maryland, in early December, 2004. During the first few days of the investigation, many attributed the 

acts to eco-terrorists. Evidence proved differently. 

ATF has a cadre of Certified Fire Investigators (CFI) and Certified Explosives 

Specialists (CES) who possess extensive experience and training in arson and explosives matters. ATF CFIs complete a 2-year training program before they are certified, and complete yearly recertification requirements. ATF CESs complete more 

than 700 hours of training requirements during their first 5 years working as explosives specialists. 

ATF’s commitment to investigating violent acts carried out by environmental extremists and animal rights extremists is also evidenced by the fact that all ATF special agents are highly trained in arson and explosives investigative techniques, and 

are capable of responding 100 percent of the time to violent incidents involving the 

Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) extremists. 

Every ATF agent, while attending Special Agent Basic Training, receives more 

training in arson and explosives related matters (150 hours) than most Federal 

agents receive in their careers. 

To put it in context, since the year 2000, ATF has initiated roughly 2600 fire and 

explosion cases each year. Since 1987, evidence has linked 185 incendiary and/or explosives devices to environmental extremists and animal rights extremists.

Question 2. What percentage of total ATF FTE does that represent? 

Response. ATF dedicates approximately 25 percent of its resources toward arson 

and explosives related issues. We do not specifically track FTE’s to ELF or ALF type 

investigations. However, all ATF agents are highly trained in arson and explosives 

related matters, and have the expertise and knowledge to respond to and investigate 

the violent acts committed by environmental extremist and animal rights extremist 

movements.

Question 3. Has the ATF ever convicted any representative of any environmental 

organization other than ALF, ELF or SHAC of domestic terrorism or as an accessory 

to the crime? 

Response. Since there are no official membership logs for these movements, it is 

difficult to quantify who the ‘‘representatives’’ are. ATF databases don’t lend themselves to non-specific queries. With regard to ELF, ALF and SHAC, ATF has been 

involved in, and successfully investigated violent acts since 1987, and recommended 

prosecution through existing statutes for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(i) (Federal 

Arson and Explosives) and 844(n) (Conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Use Of Firearm/
47

1Published list of financial supporters of No Compromise magazine, dating from 1999. http:/

/web.archive.org/web/19990501135838/http://www.enviroweb.org/nocompromise/about.html

accessed on May 13, 2005. 2 ‘‘Listing of Affidavits and Applications’’ covering wiretap and e-mail tap-and-trace warrants 

issued pursuant to the Federal animal-enterprise terrorism investigation of Stop Huntingdon 

Animal Cruelty USA [USA v. SHAC USA et al., U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey #04-cr-00373 MLC]. 

Destructive Device During Commission Of Drug Trafficking Crime Or Crime Of Violence), 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (Possession of Unregistered Destructive Device) and State 

arson laws.

Question 4. Another witness made the allegation that PETA President Ingrid 

Newkirk had prior knowledge of the Michigan State University arson. Please address whether the ATF’s investigation revealed that allegation to be true. 

Response. During the 1992 investigation of the fire at Anthony Hall on the campus of Michigan State University, ATF investigated and arrested Rod Coronado for 

the incident. Subsequently, Coronado was convicted and served 57 months in Federal prison for Federal arson violations. During the course of the investigation, ATF 

did not uncover evidence of Ingrid Newkirk’s prior knowledge of the violent act. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MARTOSKO, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,

CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM

Good morning Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is David 

Martosko. I am director of Research at the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. The Center does not solicit and has 

never accepted government funding. 

Thank you for holding this hearing today. The threat from domestic terrorism motivated by environmental and animal-rights ideologies is well documented, unambiguous, and growing. 

The ALF and ELF don’t really exist in the way we think of advocacy groups or 

even underground criminal movements like the Symbionese Liberation Army or the 

Weather Underground. ALF and ELF are labels of convenience, applied to crimes 

after the fact by individuals or small groups in order to draw public attention to 

their actions. 

Those who engage in ‘‘direct action’’ crimes, such as starting fires, detonating 

bombs, threatening lives, and stalking innocent people, receive demonstrable cooperation and assistance—both rhetorical and financial—from an above-ground support system. Today I’d like to walk you through some of our findings in this regard. 

A good place to start is No Compromise, a self-described ‘‘militant, direct action 

magazine’’ for ALF supporters. In 1999, No Compromise published a list of its benefactors, which included People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the 

Fund for Animals, In Defense of Animals, and the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance—all groups with 501(c)(3) Federal tax exemptions. The list also included 

PETA’s president and two other PETA officers, and an activist now on the staff of 

the Humane Society of the United United States (HSUS).1

HSUS, PETA, and PETA’s quasi-medical affiliate, the Physicians Committee for 

Responsible Medicine (PCRM), are troubling examples of animal-rights charities 

which have connections to their movement’s militant underbelly. In some cases, the 

line between the direct-action underground and more ‘‘mainstream’’ protest groups 

is quite blurry. 

Miyun Park, the same HSUS employee named in 1999 as a No Compromise benefactor, is the subject of at least six Federal wiretap warrants in connection with an 

upcoming Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism trial.2 These warrants also cover 

ALF apologist (and UTEP professor) Steven Best, PETA grantee (and terror defendant) Joshua Harper, and PETA employee Joe Haptas. 
48

3Pages from ‘‘Form 990’’ filed with the IRS by the Humane Society of the United States 

(HSUS) for the tax years 1998 and 1999, showing disbursements to ‘‘Waste.’’ Waste.org still acknowledges HSUS as a current financial benefactor last checked on May 13, 2005). 4 Animal Liberation Front ‘‘communique ́’’ claiming responsibility for arson attacks on meat delivery trucks in New York. It was distributed in 2001 by the ‘‘ALF Frontline’’ e-mail listserv, 

hosted by waste.org. 5 E-mail, attributed by FBI investigators to Daniel Andreas San Diego, describing the use of 

an improvised explosive device to attack a company targeted by animal-rights militants. It was 

distributed by a No Compromise magazine staffer to a listserv operated by Earth First!. 6Page from an FBI Evidence Recovery Log related to the search of bombing suspect Daniel 

Andreas San Diego’s automobile. 7 ‘‘Fur Wars Heat Up: A.L.F. is on the Warpath!’’ by J.P. Goodwin (No Compromise) Issue 4, 

Fall 1996. 8 ‘‘Activists take credit for Sandy fur fire’’ (The Deseret News), March 11, 1997. 

9Pages from ‘‘Form 990’’ filed with the IRS by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 

for the tax year 1994, showing disbursements to the ‘‘Rodney Coronado Support Committee’’ and 

a loan to Mr. Coronado’s father. 10 Excerpt pp. (8–10) from Government Sentencing Memorandum of U.S. Attorney Michael 

Dettmer, in the case of USA v. Rodney Coronado (signed Michael H. Dettmer, U.S. Attorney, 

July 31, 1995). 11Photograph and partial transcript of remarks by Rodney Coronado at American University 

(Washington, DC) on January 26, 2003. 12 ‘‘ALF Talks’’ (PETA News), November/December 1989; and ‘‘PETA Talks with the Animal 

Liberation Front’’ (PETA News, no. 4), undated, circa 1986. 

HSUS has funded the operation of an Internet server called ‘‘Waste.org’’ while it 

was the source of ALF-related ‘‘communique ́s’’ issued after the commission of 

crimes.3, 4 This server also hosted No Compromise magazine’s e-mail account. 

The case of Daniel Andreas San Diego is a chilling story of animal-rights terrorism, involving 10-pound shrapnel bombs detonated in 2003 at two California biomedical research companies, built with the same ingredients used in the 1995 Oklahoma City blast site.5 One of these bombs was accompanied by a ‘‘secondary’’ device, 

timed to detonate after first-responders (e.g., paramedics, firefighters, and police) arrived on the scene. 

Mr. San Diego is a fugitive on the FBI’s ‘‘Most Wanted’’ list. An FBI evidence recovery log from the search of his automobile describes a check written to him by 

Ariana M. Huemer—who was then an employee of the Humane Society of the 

United States (HSUS). It remains to be seen why an HSUS staffer was passing 

money to an alleged bomber.6

John Paul ‘‘J.P.’’ Goodwin represents another disturbing tie between HSUS and 

the violent animal-rights underground. In 1997, when Goodwin was the national director of the Coalition To Abolish the Fur Trade, he wrote in No Compromise that 

he and his group ‘‘support these [ALF] actions 100 percent. We will never ever work 

with anyone who helps the FBI stop the ALF—this is one of the best things to happen in a long time.’’ 7 In March 1997, following the $1 million ALF arson of a fur 

farmers’ feed co-op in Utah, Goodwin told reporters: ‘‘We’re ecstatic.’’ 8

In 2000, HSUS sent Goodwin as its emissary on a tour of Chinese fur farms. By 

2001 he was an HSUS employee, and remains on the animal-rights group’s full-time 

staff. 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has even clearer connections with the 

ALF and ELF. During the 1990’s PETA made grants and loans totaling $70,990 in 

support of the legal defense of Rodney Coronado, a self-described Animal Liberation 

Front member who was later convicted of an ALF arson at Michigan State University.9

PETA president Ingrid Newkirk was herself implicated in this arson by U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer, who wrote that Newkirk arranged ‘‘days before the MSU 

arson occurred’’ for Coronado to send her materials stolen from the targeted laboratory, along with a videotape of the fire being set.10

In February 2003, Mr. Coronado (since, released from prison) appeared at American University in Washington, DC as part of the National Conference on Organized 

Resistance. During his speech, he demonstrated before an audience of over 100 college-age activists how to build a crude incendiary device using household materials, 

for a cost of ‘‘about two dollars.’’ 11

Later that year, appearing on ABC’s 20/20, PETA president, Ingrid Newkirk was 

shown this videotape. After viewing it, she referred to Coronado as ‘‘a fine young 

man and a schoolteacher.’’

Publicly, PETA has consistently claimed to have no information about the identity 

of any Animal Liberation Front criminals. Yet on at least 2 separate occasions, 

PETA published interviews with self-described ALF members in its own news-
49

12 ‘‘ALF Talks’’ (PETA News), November/December 1989; and ‘‘PETA Talks with the Animal 

Liberation Front’’ (PETA News, no. 4), undated, circa 1986. 13Full-page advertisement (PETA News), March/April 1990. 14 Book-promotion advertisement (PETA News), spring 1993. 15Partial transcript of remarks by Bruce Friedrich at the ‘‘Animal Rights 2001’’ national conference on July 2, 2001. 16 ‘‘Activist Devotes Life to Animal Rights’’ (The Toledo Blade), June 24, 2001. 17 ‘‘Open Letter from Gary Yourofsky’’ dated May 28, 2002 and distributed to animal-rightsoriented electronic mailing lists. 18Page from ‘‘Form 990’’ filed with the IRS by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 

for the tax year 2000, showing a disbursement to the ‘‘North American Earth Liberation Front.’’ 19 Explanations given for PETA’s donation to the ELF by PETA spokespersons. 20Page from ‘‘Form 990’’ filed with the IRS by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 

for the tax year 2000, showing a disbursement to the ‘‘Josh Harper Support Fund.’’ 21Page from an FBI Evidence Recovery Log related to the search of animal-enterprise-terrorism defendant Josh Harper’s residence. 22 ‘‘Scientists Get Letters Rigged With Razors’’ (The Oregonian), October 27, 1999. 23Page from ‘‘Form 990’’ filed with the IRS by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 

for the tax year 1999, showing a disbursement to David 24 ‘‘Alleged eco-terrorist Tre Arrow denied bail while awaiting extradition hearing’’ (Associated 

Press), December 3, 2004. 25 ‘‘Animal rights group steps up protest of Procter & Gamble’’ (Associated Press), August 6, 

1998. 26 ‘‘Backfire’’ (The Mother Jones), March/April 1999. 27 Current home page for the ‘‘North American Animal Liberation Press Office’’ (accessed on 

May 13, 2005). 28 ‘‘PETA-New Jersey Rescues Lambs’’ (PETA News, vol. 1 no. 8), undated, circa 1986. 

letter.12 Early in its history, this newsletter included a full-page advertisement promoting the ALF as a ‘‘rescue’’ organization.13

Also in this newsletter, PETA advertised Ingrid Newkirk’s first book, Free The 

Animals!, as ‘‘an intimate look at the ALF,’’ and wrote that Newkirk ‘‘speaks for the 

Animal Liberation Front.’’ 14

In 2001 PETA campaign director, Bruce Friedrich told an animal-rights convention audience that ‘‘blowing stuff up and smashing windows [is] a great way to bring 

about animal liberation—Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.’’ 15

PETA has employed and continues to pay regular stipends to an activist named, 

Gary Yourofsky, who was convicted by a Canadian court of a farm burglary for 

which a claim of responsibility was issued in the name of the ALF. Mr. Yourofsky 

told a reporter in 2002 that he would ‘‘unequivocally support’’ the death of medical 

researchers in ALF-related arson fires.16

PETA hired Yourofsky after he gave this interview.17 The group acknowledges 

having employed him to speak to children in middle-school and high-school classrooms, and continues to pay him as an independent contractor. That same year PETA wrote a $1,500 check payable to the North American Earth 

Liberation Front18, a donation which PETA spokespersons have publicly attempted 

to justify with multiple and contradictory explanations.19

Regardless of which explanation (if any) is accurate, any organization funding a 

bona fide FBI-designated terrorist group should not be permitted to claim that it 

is not, in fact, funding terrorism. That logic would never pass muster if the terrorist 

group in question were Al Qaeda or the Ku Klux Klan. PETA has made a $5,000 cash grant to Joshua Harper, an activist presently 

awaiting trial in New Jersey on Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism charges.20 An 

FBI evidence recovery log from the search of his residence describes a razor-blade 

booby-trapped envelope,21 similar to those used in a string of attacks claimed by an 

ALF-like group calling itself ‘‘The Justice Department.’’ 22 Harper has reported that 

he is working on a video documentary, called ‘‘Speaking With Fire,’’ which will encourage and defend animal-rights-related arson. PETA also gave $2,000 to David Wilson, an activist who served as an official ALF 

‘‘spokesperson’’ during the 1990’s.23 In a 1999 interview with Mother Jones magazine, Wilson explained the ALF–ELF nexus: ‘‘We started with animal rights, but 

we’ve expanded to wildlife actions like the one in Vail. We’re the ones bridging the 

environmental gap.’’ 24

The criminal record of accused ELF arsonist Tre Arrow, presently attempting to 

fight extradition from Canada,25 began with an arrest in 1998 during a PETA protest near Cincinnati.26

The current crop of ALF spokespersons, who now call themselves ‘‘press officers,’’ 27 includes a New Jersey activist named Angi Metler, who was once described 

in PETA News as a ‘‘PETA spokesperson.’’ 28

Another self-appointed ALF ‘‘press officer’’ is Dr. Jerry Vlasak. In 2003, while acting as a spokesperson for the PETA-affiliated Physicians Committee for Responsible 
50

29Official program from the ‘‘Animal Rights 2003’’ national conference in Los Angeles, California. 30Partial transcript of remarks by Dr. Jerry Vlasak at the ‘‘Animal Rights 2003’’ national conference on August 3, 2003. 31Letter on Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine letterhead, co-signed by PCRM 

president Neal Barnard and then-president of SHAC USA Kevin Kjonaas. 32 Excerpts from ‘‘Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty: A Resource Guide’’ (U.S. Dept. of Justice), 

August 2003. 33 Affidavit of Pamelyn Ferdin in the case of USA v. SHAG USA et al. 34 Business card obtained in 2004 from Pamelyn Ferdin. 35Photo gallery of Dr. Steven Best, demonstrating his sphere of influence. 36Partial transcript of remarks by Dr. Steven Best, broadcast on the television program Penn 

& Teller: Bullshit (Showtime Network), April 1, 2004. 

Medicine,29 Vlasak openly endorsed the murder of doctors who use animals in their 

medical research. ‘‘For 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives,’’ he told an animal-rights 

convention, ‘‘we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.’’ When 

an audience member objected, comparing his strategy to that of violent criminals 

who bomb abortion clinics, Vlasak responded: ‘‘Absolutely. I think they had a great 

strategy going.’’ 30

In 2001 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine engaged in a letterwriting campaign with the president of another terrorist threat group called SHAC 

(Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty). The letters were designed to threaten and intimidate companies targeted by SHAC for their business dealings with a biomedical 

research firm that uses animal-testing models.31 In addition to both veiled and overt 

threats of death and bodily harm, SHAC’s tactics have included car bombings, identity theft, physical assault, and interstate stalking.32

SHAC’s current U.S. president is Pamelyn Ferdin, who is married to Dr. Jerry 

Vlasak.33 Ferdin also carries a Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine business card.34

Also on the current roster of ALF spokespersons is Dr. Steven Best, who chairs 

the Philosophy department at the University of Texas El Paso (UTEP). Like Vlasak, 

whose statements in support of violent terrorism carry weight primarily because of 

his medical license, Dr. Best’s academic position affords him a position of regrettable 

influence within the animal rights movement.35

He proclaims in one 2003 essay first published on his UTEP web page: ‘‘I support 

the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). I support property destruction—violence is defensible in certain cases—The ALF ought to be respected and appreciated for the 

brave soldiers they are.’’

In 2004 when Dr. Best praised the ALF during an interview aired on the 

Showtime cable network, he spoke in the first person: ‘‘We are breaking down doors, 

breaking into buildings, rescuing animals, and smashing property—These tactics 

are legitimate, they’re necessary, they’re powerful, they’re effective.’’ 36

Best chose his words similarly at the ‘‘Animal Rights 2003’’ national conference, 

while insisting upon the futility of promoting animal welfare among farmers and 

laboratory scientists. ‘‘Rather than arguing with them,’’ he said, ‘‘we just shut them 

down the best we can. We cannot win the war of liberation through education and 

legislative tactics alone. More direct, militant, and confrontational tactics often are 

needed.’’

Mr. Chairman, I urge this Committee to fully investigate the connections between 

individuals who commit crimes in the name of the ALF, ELF, or similar phantom 

groups, and the above-ground individuals and organizations that give them aid and 

comfort. I would also urge members of this Committee to prevail upon their colleagues to re-examine the tax-exempt status of groups that have helped to fund-directly or indirectly these domestic terrorists. 

Thank you again for holding this important hearing.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110

RESPONSE BY DAVID MARTOSKO TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question. On May 2, 2005, The Washington Post ran an article about the Center 

for Consumer Freedom (CCF) titled, ‘‘Obesity Hype?’’ According to the article, a 

group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has questioned CCF’s 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. The concern is that the founder of CCF, 

Rick Berman, may be violating Federal tax law by channeling funds from CCF and 

other non-profits that he created into his own public affairs firm, Berman and Company. According to the article, CREW also asserts that CCF’s activities are ‘‘not remotely charitable.’’ Could you please respond to these accusations? 

Response. We view CREW’s complaint as an ordinary inside-the-beltway partisan 

attack from an organization that disagrees with us. While the Center is nonpartisan 

by nature, CREW appears to be viewing our activities through the typical Washingtonian liberal-vs-conservative lens, and has apparently decided that we are not ‘‘progressive’’ enough to escape their truncheon. 

CREW itself is a self-described ‘‘left leaning’’ legal organization funded by two 

‘‘progressive’’ philanthropies and a handful of former Clinton-era DNC political 

operatives. Consisting of one high-profile lawyer and three support staffers, the organization is best known for filing a flurry of lawsuits and ethics complaints against 

prominent Republicans including Rep. Tom DeLay, Sen. Ted Stevens, Sen. Mel Martinez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, antitax crusader Grover Norquist, and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. 

On March 23, 2005, The Hill published an article (‘‘Watchdogs in Soros’s pocket: 

GOP’’ by Alexander Bolton) which, in part, explored the nature of CREW’s partisanship:

One target of Republican criticism is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics 

in Washington (CREW), the group that last year assisted former Rep. Chris Bell 

(D-Texas) in drafting an ethics complaint against DeLay, which resulted in an 

admonishment of DeLay from the ethics committee. At last week’s press conference, Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said that DeLay should step 

down as majority leader. 

From 1995 to 1998, CREW’s Sloan served as minority counsel for the House 

Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Before that, Sloan 

served as the nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under 

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware.). 

According to GOP research, Mark Penn, who had been a pollster for President 

Clinton, and Daniel Berger, a major Democratic donor, are on CREW’s board. 

Spokeswoman Naomi Seligman declined several requests to reveal the membership of CREW’s board, although she confirmed that Penn and Berger are members. Last year, Berger made a $100,000 contribution to America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 group that was dedicated to defeating Bush in the Presidential election, according to politicalmoneyline.com, a website that tracks fundraising. 

CREW declined to respond to the RNC talking points or House GOP research.

As to the substance of CREW’s charges, Berman and Company (BAC) is a communications and association-management firm. BAC manages the Center for Consumer 

Freedom (and other nonprofits, the names of which I listed at the opening of my 

testimony) on behalf of a Board of Directors and the Center’s funders. Most of these 

funders are sophisticated businesses that understand the typical nature of this arrangement. BAC manages CCF’s books, operates its educational programs, and 

keeps the organization on a course toward meeting its stated objectives. 

Expenses for which BAC bills the Center include personnel hours for research, 

communications, legal fees, and development; media expenses; information technology infrastructure; and ordinary office expenses. Still, the Center spends over 84 

percent of its operating budget on its charitable, educational programs, and barely 

15 percent on overhead and fundraising. These numbers are far better than the average for tax-exempt nonprofits. 

CREW’s claim that the Center’s activities are ‘‘not remotely charitable’’ is false 

and defamatory, and appears calculated to do us harm. The IRS has ruled that the 

Center meets its guidelines for tax-exempt status as a charitable organization with 

a legitimate educational purpose. It’s worth noting that CREW’s press release is the 

only communication we have received (or heard of) regarding its complaint. The IRS 

has not communicated with us about this issue. 

RESPONSES BY DAVID MARTOSKO TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR VITTER

Question 1. How do ALF and ELF recruit for membership? 
111

Response. It’s important to note that neither the ALF nor the ELF are ‘‘membership’’ organizations in the way we typically think about the term. Anyone who sets 

a building on fire, issues a death threat against restaurant owner, or detonates a 

pipe bomb outside a biomedical research firm can claim to be acting on behalf of 

the ALF or ELF simply by stating so in a ‘‘communique ́’’ to the outside world. 

But it’s becoming increasingly clear that a handful of high-profile activist leaders 

have made a habit of criss-crossing the country with the aim of recruiting young 

people into a lifestyle that may encourage such illegal activity. Individuals that I 

would categorize as recruiters in this fashion—those who have made repeated 

speeches, presentations, and lectures to young people promoting ‘‘direct action’’ and 

the ‘‘animal liberation’’ and ‘‘earth liberation’’ philosophies—would include: 

Dr. Steven Best, Philosophy professor at the University of Texas El Paso and current ‘‘press officer’’ for the ALF; Rodney Coronado, Convicted ALF arsonist, recipient 

of over $70,000 in PETA subsidies, and editor of the Earth First! Journal; Bruce 

Friedrich, campaign coordinator at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 

(PETA); Pamelyn Ferdin, Wife of Dr. Jerry Vlasak and president of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA; Camille Hankins, Leader of ‘‘Win Animal Rights’’ 

(W.A.R.) and current ‘‘press officer’’ for the ALF; Joshua Harper, Current Federal 

Animal Enterprise Terrorism defendant, filmmaker whose documentaries glorify 

arson in the pursuit of animal rights, and recipient of a $5,000 grant from PETA; 

Kevin Kjonaas, Former President of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA and current Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism defendant; Andrew Stepanian, Former 

PETA employee, ALF convict, and current Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism defendant; Dr. Jerry Vlasak, California trauma surgeon, recent spokesperson for the 

PETA-affiliated Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and current ‘‘press 

officer’’ for the ALF; Paul Watson, President and co-founder of the Sea Shepherd 

Conservation Society, co-founder of Greenpeace, current Board member of the Sierra 

Club; Gary Yourofsky, ALF convict and in-school lecture contractor with PETA. 

These names are merely the low-hanging fruit. It’s likely that a more exhaustive 

list could be obtained from the FBI’s Domestic Terror Operations Unit in Washington. 

In addition, there are some publications that exist for the purpose of glorifying 

ALF and ELF criminal activity. These periodicals serve as encouragement to young 

people who may be contemplating ‘‘direct action’’ (the current euphemism for arson, 

vandalism, burglary, or other crimes undertaken for political purposes): The Earth 

First Journal, Bite Back, No Compromise.

Question 2. Do you believe that they intentionally target young members? 

Response. I believe that the animal-rights and environmental movements in general have always targeted young people, and their extreme fringes are no different. 

In general, activist groups target young people with political ideas (e.g., strict vegetarianism, the abolition of fossil fuels, strict limits on suburban growth) because 

they understand that adults are less likely to undertake severe lifestyle shifts. Adolescents, on the other hand, are in the process of forging their identities and can 

be moved toward embracing ideas that older Americans might dismiss as impractical. 

The kinds of actions for which claims of responsibility are typically issued by ALF 

and ELF are generally felonies that would suggest considerable jail sentences. While 

fully formed adults with families and careers tend to see prison time as a practical 

deterrent, some teens do not. Many animal-rights movement insiders who have 

spent time behind bars make a point of preaching to teens that prison time is ‘‘no 

big deal.’’ And a far-flung support network has sprung up to ensure that those 

whom the movement considers ‘‘political prisoners’’ are inundated with encouraging 

letters, and can expect a supportive crowd at parole hearings.

Question 3. Groups like PETA use funds donated in large part by well-meaning 

citizens concerned about animal welfare, to fund extremist groups whose activities 

are clearly detrimental to the U.S. economy. How can the donating public be better 

educated concerning the ultimate use of funds donated to groups such as PETA, so 

that they better realize the ultimate effects their donations are having on the U.S. 

economy? 

Response. Nonprofit groups either are tax-exempt or they’re not. The United 

States Treasury Code does not provide for a middle ground that would permit (or 

require) disclaimers on fundraising appeals regarding the specific nature of a given 

group’s charitable activities. 

So the best solution to this problem is not for the public to be burdened with additional fine print. It’s for the Treasury Department to cancel the tax-exempt status 

of any group that crosses the line between (1) the advocacy of a controversial idea 
112

and (2) the bankrolling of extremist proponents of that idea whose actions are rightly deemed terrorist in nature. 

It should be a black-letter Internal Revenue Code violation for a 501(c)(3) organization to donate any funds to an organization designated a ‘‘domestic terror threat 

group’’ by a Federal law-enforcement agency. The FBI, BATFE, and Homeland Security Department can make these designations, but unlike when the State Department issues findings of fact regarding international terrorist threats, these pronouncements appear to have little practical weight. PETA knew that the ELF was 

considered a terrorist group when it made its donation. If our government takes the 

threat of terrorism seriously, it should not give PETA (or any similarly situated 

group) the chance to dissemble after the fact. 

If we were talking about a financial gift to Hamas or Al Qaeda (or the Ku Klux 

Klan), I seriously doubt anyone would listen to PETA’s claim that it willfully supported a terrorist group without intending to support terrorist activity. In fact, there 

have been recent cases (e.g., the Holy Land Foundation and Benevolence International) where financial support of an international terrorist threat group was 

cited by the IRS as the primary reason for revocation of 501(c)(3) status. 

RESPONSE BY DAVID MARTOSKO TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question. Mr. Martosko, do you believe it is possible to be a member of an organization, such as the Sierra Club, yet hold views that differ with that organization—

or do you believe in ‘‘guilt by association?’’

Response. Clearly, not every individual who professes membership in a given organization is likely to hold the same views on everything. So it would be unfair to 

characterize any membership organization as an opinion monolith. 

But I think a more important question is whether it’s possible for a large membership group to openly countenance the controversial and lawless views of one of its 

legal officers, and still properly represent its larger constituency. In the case of the 

Sierra Club, a member of the group’s Board of Directors (Mr. Paul Watson) openly 

endorses the use of illegal ‘‘direct action’’ tactics in the pursuit of animal rights. 

At the ‘‘Animal Rights 2004’’ convention, Watson said of animal-activist attacks 

on fishermen:

[T]o get our message across sometimes we’ve got to scare the hell out of these 

people—We don’t really want to hurt them. Well, not yet, anyway. But in the 

mean-time let’s try and continue to scare the hell out of them.

During another panel discussion at the same event, Watson added:

If you can make the law work for you and for the animals, that’s all pretty 

good. But you’ll find for the most part, of course, that the law is working 

against you and the animals. And there it becomes a question of manipulating 

the law in order to make it work for you, or sometimes ignoring the law, or 

sometimes just simply breaking the law. And remember that breaking the law 

is not that bad of a thing.

The next day, Watson clarified his position even further, making specific reference 

to ALF attacks on research laboratories:

I am fully supportive of anybody who breaks into a lab to rescue an animal 

today. I am fully supportive of anybody who has to do anything to protect life, 

because justice must take precedence over the law.

At the same event 2 year earlier (the ‘‘Animal Rights 2002’’ convention), Watson 

had these things to say: 

• ‘‘Destruction of property is not violence.’’ 

• ‘‘There’s nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you 

write the history.’’ 

• ‘‘If you do not intend to kill anybody, if you make every effort to not kill and 

injure anybody, that’s all you really can do. You can’t stop somebody from walking 

into a situation, and we really can’t be too overly preoccupied with this. The fact 

is that we live in an extremely violent culture, and we all justify violence if it’s for 

what we believe in.’’ 

• ‘‘Animal Liberation Front tactics are going to continue. There’s not a damned 

thing you can do about it, you’re not going to stop it. So you might as well incorporate it into the movement.’’

Watson puts his talk into action. His Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has 

trained several notable ALF-affiliated and otherwise criminally oriented activists, 

including arsonist Rodney Coronado, PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco, and SHAC terrorism defendants Kevin Kjonaas and Joshua Harper. Watson and Coronado openly 
113

discuss their work sunk whaling ships together. Watson’s flagship is fitted with a 

cement hull specifically designed for ramming other vessels, and (literally) flies a 

skull-and-crossbones pirate flag. 

Do most rank-and-file Sierra Club members approve of the tactics practices by one 

of their Board members? I have far too much faith in ordinary Americans to believe 

that they would. But we should ask whether the Sierra Club is doing anyone a service by allowing such an extremist to help shape its future direction. 

STATEMENT OF BRADLEY CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you to 

discuss the problems of ecoterrorism and other threats to domestic security. 

These are subjects that Governor Richard J. Codey and every New Jersey resident 

regard with urgent concern. Our residents live in the shadow of the attacks of September 11, 2001, which claimed the lives of 674 New Jerseyans and transformed 

our northern waterfront into an evacuation zone. New Jersey also was the launching site for the first major bio-terror attacks on United States soil resulting in fatalities, when a still-unknown terrorist mailed anthrax-laden letters that severely contaminated the United States Postal Service facility in Hamilton, NJ. 

New Jersey’s very strengths create particular vulnerability to acts of domestic terrorism. Our chemical, petroleum and other industrial plants that support the economy of the Nation are clustered around well-developed transportation infrastructure 

linking the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan regions. The Port of New Jersey and New York is the entry point for more than 4 million cargo containers and 

55 million tons of bulk cargo valued at over $100 billion. New Jersey is home to 

Newark Liberty International Airport—one of the busiest airports in the country 

serving more than 30 million passengers annually. New Jersey is well-known as the 

center of pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other life science industries targeted by 

violent and extreme animal rights activists. All of these infrastructure sites and 

more are potential targets for terrorists, and all lie in the most densely populated 

State in the Union. 

I shall begin with a brief overview of New Jersey’s domestic security preparedness 

activities, and then turn to the specific types of ecoterrorism that concern us. 

OVERVIEW OF NEW JERSEY’S DOMESTIC SECURITY PREPAREDNESS EFFORT

New Jersey’s unique vulnerabilities have made us a leader among States in initiating and implementing measures to counter potential terrorist operatives, to reduce the risk of attack at critical infrastructure facilities, and to reduce the potential impacts to public health and safety if any such attacks should occur in the future. New Jersey undertakes these efforts through our Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force (DSPTF or Task Force), chaired by Attorney General Peter C. Harvey, and our Office of Counter-Terrorism (OCT), directed by Sidney Caspersen. 

As Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), I serve 

as the DSPTF’s lead for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology, chemical, nuclear, 

petroleum, wastewater, and dam safety sectors of our critical infrastructure. I share 

responsibility for the water sector as well in cooperation with our Board of Public 

Utilities. Through the DSPTF and the OCT, I also participate in New Jersey’s preparedness and response effort for other sectors. Notably, the sectors within DEP’s 

oversight are among the sectors in which ecoterror has been of greatest concern, and 

the sectors in which credible threats of other forms of terrorism have most often 

been identified in New Jersey. 

The DSPTF has undertaken a comprehensive program to reduce terror risk, to ensure preparedness at critical infrastructure facilities, and to test the efficacy of both 

public agencies and the private sector in responding to acts of terrorism. Every 

DSPTF agency and every sector of our critical infrastructure has developed, thorough a public-private collaboration, a series of ‘‘Best Practices’’ for domestic security. 

Each set of Best Practices has been reviewed and approved by the Task Force and 

the Governor. Every DSPTF agency and every sector of our critical infrastructure 

has also participated in appropriate exercises to test the strengths and limits of terror detection and response capability, most recently in the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security’s regional ‘‘Top Officials’’ (‘‘TOPOFF’’) exercise in April, 2005, 

which simulated a massive bioterror attack resulting in thousands of deaths 

throughout New Jersey. 

Another worthy program initiated by DHS and carried forward by the New Jersey 

OCT in conjunction with State and local law enforcement partners is the ‘‘Buffer 

Zone Protection Program,’’ which addresses protective measures outside a facility’s 
114

perimeter. Sixteen of the most high consequence facilities in New Jersey have completed ‘‘Buffer Zone Protection Plans.’’ A program of similar scope and intensity focused on protective measures inside a facility’s perimeter is what New Jersey hopes 

this Committee and Congress will undertake. 

New Jersey’s current challenge is to ensure full implementation of security ‘‘Best 

Practices’’ across all sectors, consistent with Governor Codey’s policy of ‘‘Zero Tolerance’’ for noncompliance, and to identify those additional regulatory and other measures that are appropriate to contend with emerging threats and challenges. 

Throughout this process, DEP is working with OCT, our State Police, our Attorney 

General’s Office and private companies within our sectors to reduce or eliminate 

specific threats that we have identified on a case-by-case basis. 

ANIMAL RIGHTS/ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM

For New Jersey, animal rights/environmental terrorism, which I will loosely refer 

to as ‘‘ecoterrorism’’ is considered a significant threat. In our experience, the threat 

cleaves into two very different strains. The first strain consists of those groups with 

an ostensibly ecological ideology or agenda that are prepared to use acts or threats 

of violence to trumpet their message or interfere with legitimate industrial, commercial, or scientific enterprises. I shall refer to this strain as ‘‘ideological ecoterrorism.’’ 

The second strain consists of those groups who may use ecological harm—such as 

the sudden and catastrophic release of explosive, toxic, or other material—to expose 

the public on a scale that will create massive injuries and death and long term injury to the State’s natural resources. I shall refer to this strain as ‘‘impact 

ecoterrorism.’’

1. Ideological Ecoterrorism 

As the home to many pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other major firms concerned with the life sciences, New Jersey is particularly sensitive and attractive to 

the groups most likely to use threats or acts of terror to advance putatively ‘‘environmental’’ or ‘‘animal protection’’ causes. 

I use the terms ‘‘environmental’’ and ‘‘animal protection’’ guardedly, recognizing 

that there are mainstream environmental and animal welfare organizations that 

have contributed thoughtful advocacy to our domestic security preparedness effort 

or more broadly to environmental and wildlife policy. Thoughtful organizations participating in the public process of developing and implementing public policy should 

not suffer the stigma or suspicion that legitimately attaches to extreme and violent 

groups. 

New Jersey, primarily through the efforts of OCT, has worked with the DHS in 

closely monitoring groups advocating or promoting acts of violence or ecoterror, including any activities and potential threats associated with the Animal Liberation 

Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), or similar organizations. In New 

Jersey’s experience, the more significant threat has come from those groups espousing an extreme animal-rights agenda. 

These groups have had a particular focus on the pharmaceutical industry, which 

is one of the largest business sectors in New Jersey. The pharmaceutical industry 

contributes almost $30 billion annually to the State’s economy and employs more 

than 62,000 people. Fully 75 percent of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies maintain some presence in New Jersey. 

Ideological animal enterprise terrorist groups have in fact targeted our pharmaceutical facilities. Franklin Township is home to one of Huntingdon Life Sciences’ 

(HLS) 3 worldwide animal research laboratories. This company and its employees, 

who provide contractual work for other chemical and pharmaceutical companies, 

have been the subject of repeated harassment for more than four years by members 

of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), an organization considered an animal 

enterprise terrorist group by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 

SHAC is just one of several single-issue environmental or animal rights groups 

active in the region, which include ELF and ALF. Our OCT has noted increasing 

signs of convergence among these groups. ELF, ALF, and SHAC share certain goals 

and have overlapping agendas. These groups employ similar leaderless resistance 

models and employ similar tactics. 

Notably, traditional law enforcement approaches, coupled with the vigilance of our 

OCT, have been sufficient to deal with the threats New Jersey has seen to date. 

The methods of these groups are more akin to those of traditional felons than they 

are to those of the international terrorist communities. Their intentions generally 

have been limited to interference with particular facilities, companies, or individuals. To date, we have seen no evidence of intent to wreak mass destruction or mass 

casualties in communities surrounding these facilities. While the acts and threats 
115

of these groups may be criminal and serious in many cases, both the threat and the 

potential impacts appear within the capability of traditional law enforcement. 

The success of traditional law enforcement tools has been demonstrated by the 

Federal grand jury indictment of seven of SHAC’s leaders a year ago. I am grateful 

to U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie for his aggressive pursuit of these criminals. 

To offer a more personal example of the use of traditional law enforcement tools 

against ideological ecoterrorists, New Jersey’s Attorney General Peter Harvey has 

successfully secured a civil protective order against an animal rights extremist who 

had threatened my home and my family. 

Moreover, the measures New Jersey has undertaken to protect its communities 

against more threatening terrorist groups will significantly reduce potential risks of 

harm from ideological animal rights/environmental terrorists. For example, our 

work to ensure appropriate site security and target hardening measures at sectors 

within DEP’s oversight, and OCT’s buffer zone protection program, will help to reduce the vulnerability of all of our facilities to these acts of single-issue terrorism 

in the future. 

2. ‘‘Impact Ecoterrorism’’

Traditional law enforcement tools are not adequate to prevent and respond to ‘‘impact ecoterrorism,’’ in which the materials, processes, or resources of industrial or 

utility facilities may be used by terrorist to create injuries, death, or environmental 

damage on a massive scale. In preventing and responding to this form of terrorism, 

both Federal and State measures are needed. Governor Codey and the DSPTF are 

particularly concerned with terror risks associated with chemical, petroleum and nuclear facilities. 

In New Jersey, there are nearly 100 chemical facilities that are considered critical 

infrastructure sites, as well as 22 petroleum facilities, and four nuclear power 

plants. South Jersey alone has four refining and chemical plants each of which could 

expose a million or more people to highly toxic chemicals in a worst-case chemical 

release. 

New Jersey’s DSPTF has worked collaboratively with our critical infrastructure 

sectors to develop and implement ‘‘Best Practices’’ that will reduce risk and enhance 

preparedness at these types of facilities. Private sector leadership has been critical 

to this effort, including the example set by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) 

and the New Jersey Chemistry Council leadership to develop the Security Code of 

ACC’s ‘‘Responsible Care’’ program. This and similar efforts have provided the critical building blocks of New Jersey’s preparedness effort, and the DSPTF is implementing Governor Codey’s policy of ‘‘zero tolerance’’ for noncompliance with these 

measures. 

But these measures alone are merely a starting point. Our knowledge of both the 

threat and the appropriate response is evolving daily. As we implement the ‘‘Best 

Practices’’ and work with facilities on site-by-site review of security vulnerabilities, 

we also are beginning a public process to review what additional regulatory measures may be appropriate to harden potential targets, to reduce risk to surrounding 

communities, and to involve workers and communities in the process. 

While New Jersey is doing its part, we renew our call for Federal standards and 

protections that will reinforce our work and ensure a level playing field for firms 

operating in New Jersey. 

New Jersey is particularly concerned with the issue of chemical plant security. We 

share the concerns of President Bush’s former security adviser, Richard Falkenrath, 

who has said that the complete lack of government oversight makes potential targets out of thousands of chemical plants, and who has called chemical plant security 

‘‘the single greatest danger of potential terrorist attack in our country today.’’

Recognizing this danger, the New Jersey strongly supports the Chemical Security 

Act, introduced in the last Congress by Senator Jon Corzine and unanimously reported out of this committee on July 25, 2002. We strongly support Federal measures to require major chemical and petroleum facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments subject to Federal and State agency review; to require review of inherently safer technology that may improve plant safety; and to provide safe access to 

sensitive chemical facility security information. These requirements should, at a 

minimum, apply to the more than 15,000 facilities that are subject to the EPA’s 

Risk Management Plan (RMP) requirements. 

New Jersey also supports efforts to impose stricter Federal standards and protections in the nuclear power generation sector, another potential target for impact 

ecoterrorism. As the committee is aware, State action at these facilities is limited 

by the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). While 

the NRC has been cooperative with DEP, New Jersey is concerned that the ‘‘design 

basis threat’’ that the NRC uses to evaluate terror threats is woefully inadequate. 
116

New Jersey strongly support Federal legislation, such as last session’s S. 1043, that 

would direct the NRC and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess security vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants and waste storage facilities; to make recommendations for reducing security risks, taking into account specified threats including attacks comparable to 9/11; and to conduct a rulemaking to upgrade security 

requirements for nuclear facilities. In this Congress, New Jersey supports passage 

of S. 864, the Nuclear Safety and Security Act of 2005, even as we would like to 

see the more rigorous requirements of S. 1043 retained in the newer legislation. 

In addition, New Jersey supports legislation that would increase Federal oversight of domestic security preparedness at facilities in other sectors. For example, 

according to the EPA, there are more than 16,000 wastewater treatment facilities 

nationwide with approximately 1,600 located near large metropolitan areas. Many 

of these facilities use chlorine to disinfect the water. Chlorine is a poisonous, greenish-yellow gas that is fatal in large concentrations. It can also burn the eyes, lungs, 

and skin. When released, it quickly turns to gas, stays close to the ground, and 

spreads rapidly. In New Jersey, only one wastewater treatment plant still uses 

enough chlorine (more than 1,000 pounds annually) to be regulated by our TCPA 

rules. However, we estimate that more than 12 million pounds of chlorine is stored 

at TCPA facilities around the State. Given the prevalence of this potentially lethal 

chemical, New Jersey strongly supports Federal legislation, such as S. 779 from the 

last Congressional session, that would authorize funds for wastewater utilities to 

conduct vulnerability assessments and required wastewater facilities to conduct and 

submit vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans to the government. 

As a February 2005, General Accounting Office (GAO) report concluded, any legislation overseeing improvements in wastewater treatment security should also emphasize replacing gaseous chemicals used in wastewater treatment with less hazardous 

alternatives; improving local, State, and regional efforts to coordinate responses in 

advance of a terrorist threat; and completing vulnerability assessments for individual wastewater systems. 

Added Federal safeguards in these areas would complement New Jersey’s tradition of strict rules to ensure safety at major chemical and petroleum facilities and 

to protect surrounding communities. Almost 20 years ago, the State adopted the 

Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) statute after the Bhopal tragedy in India. 

TCPA rules require detailed ‘‘risk management plans’’ and ‘‘off-site consequences 

analysis’’ to be performed for all chemical sites that manage extraordinarily hazardous substances. In the wake of the September 11 tragedy, we have redoubled our 

efforts to ensure safety at these facilities. On August 5, 2003, New Jersey became 

the first State to regulate reactive hazard substances when present at a facility 

above a specified threshold, Reactive hazard substances are those that can explode 

when inadvertently exposed to air or water or when mixed with certain other chemicals. 

New Jersey also requires facilities subject to TCPA regulations to evaluate their 

risk reduction options every 5 years to ensure the options reflect the most up-todate, practicable technologies available for minimizing the risk of catastrophic accidental releases, and to implement this technology if cost-effective. Facilities must 

evaluate their new processes to ensure they incorporate, where feasible and cost-effective, inherently safer technologies that minimize or eliminate the threat of chemical releases by using safer chemicals, reducing chemical inventories, and improving 

equipment maintenance and design. 

In addition to our TCPA program, DEP also regulates facilities through its Discharge Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure (DPCC) program. The DPCC 

program is basically an above-ground storage tank program that regulates facilities 

that store either 20,000 gallons of hazardous substances or 200,000 gallons of petroleum products and hazardous substances. Each facility is required to prepare a 

DPCC Plan and a Discharge Cleanup and Removal Plan (DCR). The DCR plan is 

the emergency response plan for the facility in the event of a discharge. DEP must 

review and approve of these plans. 

The primary focus of both the DPCC and TCPA programs has been to ensure that 

the hazardous substances used by these facilities are not accidentally discharged 

into the State’s environment. These programs are proving to be useful tools in domestic security preparedness, and will inform any additional regulatory requirements we develop at the State level. 

But we remain persuaded that both security and interstate fairness would be advanced significantly, and with far less economic impact, if State measures were coupled with a Federal framework of regulatory protections. New Jersey is prepared 

to work with all members of the committee to achieve appropriate legislation to establish that framework. 
117

HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

In responding to the threats of both single-issue, or ideological ecoterrorists, and 

impact ecoterrorists, funding is critical. Governor Codey has repeatedly pointed out 

that current homeland security funding formulas seriously undervalue actual intelligence about the presence of potential and known terror targets. 

For all of the types of terrorists discussed today, New Jersey presents a greater 

array of pharmaceutical, chemical and petrochemical targets, in much closer proximity to population centers, than many other States. The same is true in States like 

California and Louisiana, especially when compared to States like Wyoming or Nebraska. 

New Jersey’s Federal homeland security funds overall decreased by more than 36 

percent in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. We estimate that the Federal budget will translate to $4.35 per capita in homeland security funding for New Jersey versus $25.45 

per capita in Wyoming. Moreover, the current Federal budget cuts Federal Urban 

Area Security Initiative funding to Jersey City by more than 60 percent and to Newark by nearly 20 percent; this despite the fact that Newark faced a Terror Level 

of Orange last year after it was learned that terror groups might be plotting to 

bomb major financial targets in Newark. 

Greater homeland security funding is needed more than ever as we also try to 

be mindful of other sectors that might also be targets of terror groups. In his 2005 

State of the State address, Acting Governor Codey launched an unprecedented effort 

to make New Jersey’s students safer by introducing a statewide school security 

checklist, law-enforcement visits to schools and training of teachers and staff to prepare for possible terror attacks on schools. This initiative was prompted by concerns 

last fall when information about two New Jersey elementary schools, one in Monmouth County and one in Gloucester County, was found on a computer disk in Iraq. 

This was at the same time that terrorists seized a middle school in Russia and 

killed more than 300 children and other hostages. As a result, the New Jersey State 

Police are helping our schools pinpoint widespread security weaknesses that should 

be remedied. The need for this initiative, while not falling under the jurisdiction of 

this Committee, is yet one more demonstration of why New Jersey and all States 

need greater financial and regulatory support from the Federal government to address all fronts in the fight to improve homeland security. 

CONCLUSION

New Jersey considers both single-issue, or ideological ecoterrorism, and impact 

ecoterrorism to be serious risks to the safety and health of our communities. New 

Jersey’s experience has been that traditional law enforcement tools, coupled with domestic security preparedness measures implemented to date, appear commensurate 

with the threat of single-issue or ideological ecoterror groups. With regard to ‘‘impact ecoterrorism,’’ New Jersey urges Congress to enact additional regulatory safeguards and protections, and to revise Federal funding formulas to respond to available intelligence concerning the nature of the relevant threats. 

RESPONSES BY BRADLEY CAMPBELL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. What are the potential consequences of ‘‘impact eco-terrorism’’ in New 

Jersey, such as a terrorist attack on a chemical plant? 

Response. The New Jersey Office of Counter-Terrorism maintains a Critical Infrastructure List (‘‘CI List’’) that identifies the infrastructure within the chemical sector which have the greatest vulnerability based on threat information, consequence 

to life and/or the economy, or the ability to disrupt the routine of daily life, if subjected to terrorist attack. The CI List contains Tier 1 (Department of Homeland Security criteria) and Tier 2 (New Jersey criteria) facilities. Tier 1 includes sites that 

could cause death or serious injury in the event of a chemical release and have 

greater than 300,000 people within a 25-mile radius of the facility. Tier 2 facilities 

include the remaining sites that have off site consequences and those that have 

greater than 500,000 gallons of aboveground storage tank capacity for hazardous 

substances. There are a total of 93 chemical facilities on the CI List. 

The potential population impact of a terrorist attack at one of the CI facilities is 

site specific. There are 7 facilities were the impact exceeds a residential population 

of 1,000,000, 16 facilities that exceed 100,000, and 80 facilities that have off site 

consequences less than 100,000 people. In summary, 80 of the 93 CI facilities have 

the potential for off site consequences resulting from a terrorist attack. 
118

In addition to the potential population impact, the economic ramifications of a terrorist attack are also quite severe. The chemical industry is a critical and indispensable part of New Jersey’s infrastructure. The business of chemistry is a nearly $30 

billion industry in New Jersey, ranking the State second in the $460 billion-a-year 

enterprise throughout the United States.

Question 2. Compared to the risks posed by ‘‘impact eco-terrorism’’, how great is 

the threat of ALF or ELF attacks in your State? 

Response. It is highly likely that New Jersey will continue to experience terrorist 

acts perpetrated by ALF and its affiliates. Currently, the most active animal enterprise terrorist group in New Jersey is the ALF affiliate Stop Huntington Animal 

Cruelty (SHAC). SHAC was formed in 1999 in the United Kingdom as part of an 

international campaign to close Huntington Life Sciences (HLS), a Contract Research Organization (CRO) which performs testing on animals. HLS does contractual work for other pharmaceutical and chemical companies, and the only HLS facility in the United States is located in New Jersey. In recent months, SHAC has expanded its target list well beyond HLS to include pharmaceutical companies and 

others that are HLS clients, suppliers, or otherwise do business with HLS. Since 

New Jersey is widely acknowledged as the global epicenter of the pharmaceutical 

and medical technology industry, serving as corporate headquarters for many of the 

world’s largest drug companies, it is truly a target-rich environment for SHAC and 

ALF. 

The majority of the attacks committed by ALF and SHAC have consisted of vandalism and harassment attacks perpetrated on the personal property of employees 

of pharmaceutical and biosciences companies. In addition, there have been several 

instances in which ALF has conducted incendiary attacks against fur stores and the 

property of amusement parks and circuses that incorporate animal acts. And three 

years ago, SHAC managed to steal fourteen dogs from HLS. 

Thus far, ELF has not been particularly active in New Jersey, though it is active 

in the region. Moreover, since ALF and ELF share similar goals and tactics, support 

each other, and likely draw on the same pool of activists, the threat from ELF cannot be discounted. 

While causing human casualties is not among the explicitly stated goals of these 

groups, the parent organizations have little control over their more violent elements. 

In August and September 2003, an animal rights activist named Daniel Andreas 

San Diego was linked to bomb attacks committed against facilities operated by the 

Chiron and Shaklee corporations to protest their sponsorship of animal experimentation. He is still at large, and is believed to be the leader of a violent ALF splinter 

faction called the ‘‘Revolutionary Cells: Animal Liberation Brigade.’’ Also, SHAC activists in the UK, where HLS is headquartered, followed the HLS President home 

and severely beat him. Finally, a prominent ELF activist in the region has threatened police with bodily harm if they stand in ELF’s way.

Question 3. Are you aware of any evidence that any mainstream environmental 

group supports the Earth Liberation Front? 

Response. The Sierra Club has issued several statements condemning the activities of ELF, including the following, made by the Sierra Club’s executive director 

in August ’03: ‘‘No matter what the motivation, the Sierra Club does not condone 

acts of violence.’’ And the eco-group Greenpeace, while frequently engaging in acts 

of civil disobedience, actually contributed to the creation of ELF by refusing to engage in criminal activity, prompting the most radical members of Greenpeace to 

form ELF. 

In contrast, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 

(PETA) has made numerous contributions to the defense funds of jailed animal 

rights activists, has partially underwritten a speaking tour by a convicted eco-terrorist, and has sold a book, ‘‘Free The Animals,’’ that champions ALF’s activities. 

In the book, PETA director Ingrid Newkirk romanticizes ALF’s activities and its violent methods. 

PETA recently has been active in New Jersey, specifically targeting Covance, Inc. 

PETA activists in the region also have spoken out in support of SHAC. 

RESPONSE BY BRADLEY CAMPBELL TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question. You stated that New Jersey has adequate law enforcement tools to combat the ‘‘ideological terrorists’’ such as ALF and ELF. What tools did New Jersey 

use to arrest and indict the seven leaders of the group Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty, last year? 
119

Response. The 6 SHAC leaders in New Jersey were charged under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 which prohibits, among other activities, the causing 

of ‘‘physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise.’’ The Newark 

Joint Terrorism Task Force investigated the matter, with the assistance of the New 

Jersey Office of Counter-Terrorism, the New Jersey State Police, and local law enforcement entities. 

What makes the successful prosecution of groups like ALF, SHAC, and ELF difficult is the fact that they are organized into small, independent cells that have 

minimal contact with their respective leadership. Unlike organized crime groups, 

the parent organizations function as information and propaganda centers, and have 

little direct control over how these independent cells operate. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SKORTON, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords and distinguished members of the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: My name is David Skorton, 

and I am President of The University of Iowa. I am also a physician and professor 

in the Colleges of Medicine and Engineering. I am honored to have been asked to 

provide testimony today concerning a series of events on The University of Iowa 

campus and in our community of Iowa City, Iowa, triggered by a destructive breakin at one of our campus research facilities. This incident raises a variety of issues 

related to academic freedom, a safe working and living environment, the place of 

civil disobedience on a university campus and, most importantly, the future environment and accessibility of a publicly supported institution of higher education. 

In the early morning hours of Sunday, November 14, 2004, 3 or more individuals, 

later claiming to represent the Animal Liberation Front, broke into our Seashore 

Hall and Spence Laboratories facility, including research laboratories associated 

with the Department of Psychology. The intruders smashed and overturned equipment and poured acid and other chemicals on equipment and papers. Over 300 rodents were removed from the facility. Many of these rodents, purpose-bred for research and being cared for by faculty members, veterinarians and other animal care 

professionals, likely suffered and died as a result of this action. The individuals also 

broke into faculty offices, dumped books, research materials, and computers on the 

floor, and poured acid on these items. 

The University of Iowa Police in conjunction with the State of Iowa Department 

of Criminal Investigation involved the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was 

central to this investigation of domestic terrorism. Many other health and safety officials were also involved. All affected units had to be temporarily closed or relocated, including offices, classrooms, research labs and psychology clinics. Not only 

was research disrupted, but the academic activities and careers of faculty, undergraduate and graduate students and post-doctoral trainees were impaired, in some 

cases adding months to the conduct of their federally funded, peer-reviewed research. 

Four days after the break-in, on Thursday, November 18, individuals claiming responsibility for this act sent an e-mail to multiple local and national media outlets. 

The e-mail claimed responsibility on behalf of ALF for the vandalism on the facility. 

It also included the names, home addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and 

spouse’s or partner’s names for Psychology Department faculty who conduct animal 

research, as well as for some graduate students and laboratory assistants. Publicizing this personal information was blatant intimidation. It was also successful, as 

these individuals are still being harassed and are still concerned about their own 

safety, as well as their families’. To cite 1 example of harassment, 5 faculty members as well as some of their spouses received a total of over 400 unsolicited magazine subscriptions under the ‘‘bill me later’’ option. In terms of safety issues, numerous researchers are even concerned about allowing their children to play in their 

own yards. 

In addition to the human cost to the researchers, their colleagues and families, 

the total direct costs for the incident are approximately $450,000. The cost for the 

chemical cleanup, both by our own Health Protection Office and outside contractors, 

is estimated at $150,000. The cost to our Department of Public Safety, including increased contract-based security on campus, is approximately $25,000, and replacement estimates for equipment and supplies are over $250,000. With this incident 

prompting a review of all of our security measures, the eventual cost for additional 

research facility protection will be much more. What cannot be measured in monetary terms is the loss of progress in research. 

Because the vandalized research space is located within a larger shared-use academic building, the work of dozens of faculty, staff and students who were not in 
120

1 Attributed to Mohandas K. Gandhi by the Official Mahatma Gandhi eArchive and Reference 

Library of the Mahatma Gandhi Foundation of Mumbai, India at http://www.mahatma.org.in/

quotes/quotes.jsp?link=qt.

any way connected to the research was disrupted for many days during a very busy 

time of the academic year while health and safety officials cleared the building. 

Though the destruction was to research equipment and materials, it is clear from 

the videos the group provided to the media that the message of fear and intimidation was meant for a much larger audience—the University as a whole and the general public. 

Was this an act of either informed debate or civil disobedience? I think not. As 

a long-time student of the writings of Mohandas K. Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther 

King, Jr., I recognize several critical and undeniable differences between the criminal behavior that is the focus of my comments and that of classic practitioners of 

civil disobedience. 

First, the perpetrators of the vandalism at our University took no personal responsibility for the acts, but performed the actions wearing ski masks or other garments to protect their identities. At the heart of Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent 

resistance was openness and forthrightness in one’s actions, ‘‘daring to do the right 

and facing consequences whether it is in matters social, political or other.’’ 1 Second, 

direct intimidation of the researchers and their families, intended to cause fear and 

personal anxiety, was a deliberate tactic in our case. To my knowledge, such personal and familial intimidation has never been a feature of the nonviolent civil disobedience respected in our country. Third, and perhaps most ironically, the attack 

occurred on a campus which has for decades prided itself on exceeding Federal regulations regarding the humane care and use of animals in research and teaching. 

If not civil disobedience, what was this action? In my estimation it was, purely 

and simply, a criminal act meant to disrupt an endeavor which is highly valued by 

our society. In the face of society’s support for this research, the illegal tactics of 

a violent group have been unsuccessful in eradicating it. 

Let us explore for a moment the place of public civil discourse in the nationwide 

discussion on the use of animals in research and teaching. Thanks to effective interactions among researchers, administrators, and constructive animal welfare groups, 

the handling and use of research animals have been greatly improved in recent decades. Animal Care and Use Committees at institutions receiving Federal funding 

are responsible for extremely careful review and approval, disapproval or modification of all proposals to use animals in research. On the University of Iowa campus, 

training in the handling of research animals is mandatory before principal investigators, researchers, or other personnel can acquire a single animal for research or 

teaching activities. In addition, these committees conduct ongoing monitoring of activities in which animals are used for research and educational purposes. Many 

campuses, including The University of Iowa, have gone beyond these regulations by, 

for example, seeking and obtaining voluntary accreditation with the Association for 

Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International, Inc. 

What has been the result on our campus of the deplorable criminal action by a 

group of vandals acting in the dark of night, taking no responsibility for their actions? 

First, the environment for researchers at The University of Iowa has been permanently altered. These researchers, who have devoted their careers to fundamental 

and applied research directed at increasing the corpus of life science knowledge and 

improving health for animals and humans, now live lives of fear and anger. Second, 

the University and Federal and State taxpayers indirectly have had to spend funds 

that were, in essence, wasted on the sequelae of this action rather than on advancing the state of animal and human health. This, no doubt, was part of the strategy 

of the organization at work. Third, in the wake of many other national security 

issues, this action and others like it add to the increasingly significant changes in 

the openness of American university campuses. No longer can those of us in positions of responsibility consider our campuses to be largely open areas, and we must 

increasingly consider security concerns that affect the openness of the environment. 

Most importantly, what has not changed and will not change is that The University of Iowa is completely and unalterably committed to allowing faculty, staff and 

students to pursue their chosen research that is scientifically sound, legal and humane. When there are problems in the conduct of animal research at our University, 

they are identified, corrected and handled by a well-established system of peer review and administrative oversight. This criminal act will do nothing but strengthen 

our resolve to stand behind the principles of academic freedom in conducting publicly supported research toward the advancement of knowledge and the improvement of animal and human health. 
121

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MONTY A. MCINTYRE, ESQ., ON BEHALF OF GARDEN COMMUNITIES

Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, and Members of the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works: 

My name is Monty McIntyre, and it is my privilege and honor to testify before 

you today on behalf of my client, Garden Communities. 

President Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, said these immortal 

words:

That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that 

this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government 

of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

I’ve come here to tell you about the devastating consequences of violent acts by 

groups like the Earth Liberation Front (‘‘ELF’’). They certainly don’t believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. On August 1, 2003 ELF 

torched an apartment building that Garden Communities was building in San 

Diego, totally destroying the building and causing millions of dollars of damage. 

Garden Communities is a company that builds and operates apartment buildings 

in California and Arizona, providing homes for thousands of people. It creates jobs, 

not only for its employees, but also for the many subcontractors and construction 

professionals that it works with. 

Garden Communities properly follows the environmental laws applicable to its 

projects. California has one of the toughest environmental laws in the country, 

known as the California Environmental Quality Act (‘‘CEQA’’). Under CEQA the 

Garden Community project, known as La Jolla Crossroads, was required to undergo 

the most intensive environmental study which is called an Environmental Impact 

Report (‘‘EIR’’). When an EIR is being prepared, the public is notified and given the 

opportunity to provide iriput. The EIR considers the potential environmental impacts of the project, how those impacts might be eliminated or mitigated, and also 

considers alternative uses of the property. The La Jolla Crossroads project went 

through the extensive EIR process and was approved. 

When completed, La Jolla Crossroads will include nine apartment buildings and 

one scientific research building. Before the ELF attack, the first building was expected to be completed by April 2004, and the project completion date was scheduled 

for August of 2009. Approximately 50 to 60 companies and approximately 150 people were working on the project. 

On August 1, 2003, ELF started a fire that completely destroyed the first building 

under construction. Why do we think that ELF is responsible? On the ground next 

to the burned building was a white bed sheet with spray painted letters that said 

‘‘You make us mad. You build it. We bum it. ELF.’’

All framing and the foundation for the building were completely destroyed. All 

construction work stopped immediately. Many of the companies who were working 

on the project struggled financially after the fire, and at least two companies either 

went bankrupt or stopped functioning all together. The fire loss also interrupted 

good working relationships that Garden Communities had developed with several of 

its subcontractors. After the fire, Garden Communities was forced to spend time and 

resources figuring out its fire loss, removing the damage and debris, renegotiating 

numerous contracts with subcontractors, and working to get the construction going 

again. 

This fire loss will delay the total project completion by at least 1 year. Garden 

Communities has suffered approximately $22 million in damages from this terrorist 

act. The damages include overhead and general conditions, hard costs for the reconstruction of the building that was destroyed, and other damages related to the entire project including loss of rental income, increased carrying costs, and increased 

construction costs. 

Garden Communities has further suffered because its fire loss claim has been 

wrongfully denied by Illinois Union Insurance Company, the second excess carrier. 

Illinois Union denied this fire loss claim, even though the primary carrier and the 

first excess carrier have paid their policy limits. Illinois Union’s bad faith acts mean 

that Garden Communities has been victimized twice, first by ELF and later by Illinois Union Insurance Company. 

Garden Communities is a good company. It provides jobs for our citizens and 

builds much needed housing for folks in California and Arizona. 

Garden Communities followed the environmental rules and was properly building 

this project. 
122

By violently taking matters into their own hands, terrorist groups like ELF 

threaten our nation’s fundamental values including the idea that our government 

should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. 

We hope that the U.S. Senate will do everything in its power to stop future unlawful acts by terrorist groups like ELF.
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138

AMERICAN RIVERS, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, GREENPEACE, LEAGUE OF

CONSERVATION VOTERS, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, SIERRA

CLUB, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, U.S. 

PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, 

May 17, 2005. 

Hon. JAMES INHOFE,

Chairman, Committee on the Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. JAMES JEFFORDS,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATORS: It has come to our attention that the Environment and Public 

Works Committee is holding a hearing to look into acts of violence ostensibly committed in the name of the environment. On behalf of the millions of members of our 

organizations, we would like to reiterate that our groups strongly condemn all acts 

of violence, including those committed in the name of environmental causes. Moreover, we would like to stress our opposition to all forms of violence related to terrorism on behalf of any cause. 

While we can respect the decision of those who, as a matter of conscience, undertake acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, peaceful disobedience and violence are 

vastly different acts. Our groups do not condone any acts of violence or violent 

crime, no matter what the motivation. 

In fact, we urge Congress to focus on important matters related to terrorism and 

the rule of law that demand immediate and careful attention. Regarding safety from 

terrorist attack, we urge Congress to enact legislation to make vulnerable targets 

here in the United States, like chemical and nuclear plants, more secure against 

terrorist attacks. We respectfully urge you to move meaningful legislation forward 

on this issue. 

We are also disturbed by conspicuously narrow and exclusive legislative approaches considered by Congress in the past regarding political violence or crime 

that focus only on acts of violence allegedly committed in the name of the environment. Such legislation should condemn violence regardless of the cause, helping to 

ensure that the threat from other kinds of terrorist groups is not ignored, or worse, 

unintentionally encouraged. Furthermore, some of this narrow legislation has been 

written in a way that potentially covers non-violent forms of protest, which could 

chill freedom of political expression and dissent. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views. Please be assured that we stand 

ready to work with your committee on any issue that will make America safer and 

more secure. 

Sincerely, 

Anna Aurilio, Legislative Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group; 

S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, Vice President for Government Affairs, 

American Rivers; Debbie Boger, Deputy Legislative Director, Sierra 

Club; Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Toxics Campaign, Greenpeace; 

Linda Lance, Vice President for Public Policy, The Wilderness Society; Tiernan Sittenfeld, Legislative Director, League of Conservation 

Voters; Karen Wayland, Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Council; Marchant Wentworth, Washington Representative for 

Clean Energy, Union of Concerned Scientists; Sara Zdeb, Legislative 

Director, Friends of the Earth. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. KERR, GENERAL COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE

AFFAIRS, THE PETA FOUNDATION

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these brief comments to the Committee 

in order to place the activities of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. 

(PETA) in the proper perspective. 

PETA’S CHARITABLE PROGRAMS

PETA is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 

800,000 members and supporters around the country and around the globe. Since 

its founding in 1980, PETA has had a tremendous impact on the treatment of animals in the United States and internationally, evidenced by the following small list 
139

of just some of its most recent accomplishments, more of which can be found at 

PETA.org: 

• PETA convinced fast-food giants McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s to improve living conditions for the animals provided by their suppliers. These were immense steps forward that greatly reduce the suffering of billions of animals. 

• PETA has convinced almost 600 companies, including Gillette, ColgatePalmolive, Mary Kay, L’Oreal, and many others, to stop testing their products on 

animals. 

• PETA has convinced international retailers Limited Brands, Timberland, J. 

Crew, Abercrombie & Fitch, and New Look, among others, to pledge not to sell cruelly-obtained Australian wool until the practice of mulesing (in which farmers use 

gardening shears to cut large sections of flesh from sheep’s’ rumps without any 

painkillers) and the live export of millions of discarded sheep to the Middle East 

for slaughter every year are stopped. 

• PETA released details of cruelty to pigs found during an investigation of the 

third-largest pig farm in the U.S. One manager was charged with four counts of felony animal cruelty—only the second time in U.S. history that a factory farm employee has been charged with felony animal abuse. (The first time was a PETA case 

involving a North Carolina pig farm in 2000). 

• PETA convinced international retail giants like Nike, Gucci, Eddie Bauer, Nordstrom, Reebok, Kenneth Cole, The GAP, and L.L. Bean to boycott Indian leather 

after PETA exposed the immense animal abuse in the Indian leather industry, including breaking animals’ tails and rubbing hot peppers into their eyes in order to 

force them to march long distances to slaughter. 

• PETA convinced the U.S. Department of Transportation to stop painful tests in 

which corrosive chemicals were poured onto rabbits’ shaved backs, burning holes 

into their skin. PETA successfully argued that the D.O.T. should use a modern, nonanimal test that had already been approved by the government. 

• PETA convinced Sears, Roebuck & Company to cancel its sponsorship of Ringling Bros. & Barnum and Bailey Circus after explaining Ringling’s record of repeatedly violating the Federal Animal Welfare Act in which they have failed to satisfy 

even minimum standards for the animals beaten and forced to perform tricks in its 

circus. 

• PETA saved more than 800,000 animals from painful poisoning tests slated for 

the U.S. Government’s high production volume (HPV) chemical program designed to 

test thousands of chemical substances on animals. The government agreed to replace many of the tests with non-animal methods, delay some of the tests for two 

years to allow for the development of non-animal tests, and to dedicate $5 million 

to fund non-animal methods. 

• PETA’s SNIP (Spay and Neuter Immediately Please)-mobile, a mobile spay-neuter clinic serving mostly low-income families, has sterilized nearly 25,000 animals 

for those people who could not otherwise afford the procedures and for shelter cats 

and dogs prior to adoption. 

• PETA staff and dedicated volunteers travel regularly to one of the country’s 

poorest communities in North Carolina to deliver hundreds of doghouses hand-made 

by PETA to exacting specifications for animals exposed to the elements at the city’s 

rundown animal shelter and for ‘‘backyard dogs’’ huddled under card tables, inside 

rusting cars, and in mud holes, unable to get away from searing summer heat and 

freezing winter cold. 

We have enclosed a sampling of several news articles regarding PETA’s groundbreaking and effective campaigns for the protection of animals, along with some of 

the thousands of news releases PETA has issued over the last 5 years informing 

the public about our work. 

THE PRESENT INQUIRY

The allegations directed against PETA in this inquiry are old news, some dating 

from as far back as the 1980s. It is all too predictable that PETA’s work for the 

improvement of our society by seeking to reduce the suffering and abuse inflicted 

on billions of animals annually raised and killed for food, experimented upon, 

slaughtered for their skins and fur, or beaten and abused in circuses would be attacked by the industries profiting from that abuse. We take these attacks as a sign 

of our effectiveness in eroding the support that props up their businesses. These 

smear attacks, using half-truths, false innuendo, and outright lies have been a regular occurrence since PETA’s founding a quarter century ago. 

PETA has no involvement with alleged ALF or ELF actions. PETA does not support terrorism. PETA does not condone violence. In fact, PETA exists to fight the 
140

terrorism and violence inflicted on billions of animals annually in the meat, dairy, 

experimentation, tobacco, fur, leather, and circus industries. 

The matters asserted against PETA in this inquiry have also been reviewed during one of two comprehensive Internal Revenue Service audits of PETA, the first 

between 1990–1992, and the second one, a 20-month-long major case audit from 

2003–2005, both of which resulted in reaffirmation of PETA’s tax exempt status. 

PETA FACT SHEET

The fact sheet in question was written in the late 1980s and was not updated, 

other than to change PETA’s address after relocating to Norfolk nine years ago. The 

fact sheet is no longer in use and was discontinued as being out of date during a 

routine review. It accurately identifies PETA as a legal organization that merely informed the public and proper authorities about animal abuse information received 

by it anonymously, consistent with its First Amendment rights and charitable mission. The last time PETA issued any such information was in 1992. It also accurately states that PETA has no way to contact the people who sent the information 

and no way of knowing if it will ever hear from them again. 

The Activist Defense Fund referred to in the fact sheet never came into being. 

The grants about which the Committee inquired were made from PETA’s general 

operating funds and properly and publicly reported. Those grants represent an infinitesimally small portion of PETA’s expenditures in furtherance of its charitable 

animal protection mission over the years, totaling more than $100 million since 

1999 alone. 

2001 GRANT OF $1,500

PETA made a grant to assist Craig Rosebraugh in paying legal fees associated 

with responding to a subpoena he received in connection with a grand jury investigation in Oregon. PETA does not know the precise nature of the grand jury investigation and has no information that Mr. Rosebraugh was ever alleged to have been 

involved in or charged with any wrongdoing related to the ELF or otherwise. PETA 

believed that Mr. Rosebraugh was subpoenaed as a result of the fact that he had 

engaged in protected First Amendment activity by publicizing the mistreatment of 

animals. The grant request was referred to PETA’s outside counsel for review and 

approval. The IRS reviewed this grant as part of the recently completed audit which 

resulted in reaffirmation of PETA’s tax-exempt status. 

GRANT TO SUPPORT COMMITTEE

PETA provided funds to assist in paying legal fees incurred in connection with 

the defense of charges that arose out of a grand jury investigation. PETA also provided a loan, which was repaid, to assist in posting bond pending trial, the terms 

of which bond were complied with fully. As with the Rosebraugh grant, PETA referred this matter to outside counsel for review and approval. The IRS reviewed this 

grant and loan as part of its recent audit which resulted in reaffirmation of PETA’s 

tax-exempt status. 

We are proud of what we have accomplished with the vital support of our members and volunteers, but we will not rest on that record. PETA will continue to expose animal abuse and to work for a better world in which the rights of all animals 

to be free from exploitation and abuse, to have food and shelter, or to simply be left 

alone are recognized by every nation.
141
142
143
144
145

1 Justin Rood, ‘‘Animal Rights Groups and Ecology Militants Make DHS Terrorist List, RightWing Vigilantes Omitted,’’ Congressional Quarterly (March 25, 2005) can be seen at http://

www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=crawford/20050325—homeland. The actual 5-year planning document, entitled ‘‘Integrated Planning Guidance, Fiscal Years 2005-2011,’’ was produced in a 

‘‘sensitive’’ and ‘‘for official use only’’ format, and now is marked ‘‘Sensitive.’’ Therefore, any discussion of the contents of the DHS document in this report is based solely on the public reports 

of the document, not an actual review of it. 2 ‘‘The Year in Hate,’’ Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report, Issue Number 113, 

Spring 2004, available at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=131. 3 Both Presidential Decision Directive-39 (PDD–39), titled ‘‘U.S. Policy on Terrorism,’’ dated 

June 21, 1995, and Executive Order 12333 designate the FBI as the lead agency for countering 

acts of terrorism within the United States. 4On March 16, 2005, in his first major policy address, the new Secretary of DHS, Michael 

Chertoff, stated that DHS needs to adopt a ‘‘risk-based approach in both our operations and our 

philosophy.’’ The speech is available at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4391. 

REPORT

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BENNIE G. THOMPSON, RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, APRIL 19, 2005

TEN YEARS AFTER THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY MUST DO MORE TO FIGHT RIGHT-WING DOMESTIC TERRORISTS

According to a recent public report, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) 5-year budget planning document failed to mention right-wing domestic terrorist groups in its list of terrorist threats facing the United States, even though 

the document listed left-wing domestic groups such as environmental terrorists.1

Democratic Members of the House Committee on Homeland Security are very concerned that this oversight demonstrates DHS administrators are not adequately 

considering right-wing domestic terrorist groups that are focused on attacking 

America in order to further their political beliefs. 

As the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City 10 years ago 

demonstrated, right-wing domestic terrorists are capable of harming America in 

ways similar to Al Qaeda. Indeed, white supremacists, violent militiamen, anti-abortion bombers, and other right-wing hate groups have shown a remarkable ability to 

resist law enforcement authorities. In 2003, for example, the American radical right 

staged a ‘‘comeback,’’ with the number of skinhead groups doubling from the prior 

year.2

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the lead agency for investigating 

acts or preparation of domestic terrorism.3 However, the Department has a key role 

in fighting domestic terrorism, especially with respect to its duties to conduct threat 

analysis and protect critical infrastructures. As DHS implements its new plan to 

focus on risk as a means of allocating scarce anti-terrorism resources,4 it must consider the threat that right-wing domestic terrorists pose to critical infrastructure 

and America as a whole. Moreover, it must re-define what it considers to be critical 

infrastructure by re-evaluating the risk that right-wing domestic terrorists pose to 

schools, large churches, or other public places in order to publicize their beliefs. Better coordination and sharing of information between the FBI and DHS may be necessary in order to evaluate these risks. 

If DHS’ long-term planning documents do not consider these and other risks posed 

by right-wing domestic terrorists, then lower-level agents working to fight these 

groups may not be receiving enough budgetary, policy, or administrative support 

from their superiors. This means possible threats to our homeland could go undetected. In order to correct this potential security gap, a renewed effort should be 

made to catalogue the risks posed by right-wing domestic terrorists, determine how 

DHS is already working to fight these risks, and evaluate what can be done to improve these efforts. 

This report provides some of the framework for this analysis, but it is only a first 

step in the process. As 9/11 showed us, America’s security can only be assured if 

our intelligence and law enforcement agencies do a better job evaluating threats, including thinking of risks that are ‘‘outside the box,’’ and break down bureaucratic 

barriers to information sharing and action. There may be right-wing terrorists here 

in America that want to create just as spectacular a disaster as the 9/11 attacks, 

and we cannot fail to meet this threat. 

DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED

Incidents such as the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1996 bombing of 

Olympic Park in Atlanta, GA during the 1996 Summer Olympics prove that domes-
146

5Presidential Decision Directive 39 and Executive Order 12333.

6FBI, Counterterrorism Threat Assessment and Warning Unit, Counterterrorism Division, 

‘‘Terrorism in the United States, 1999,’’ available at http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/

terror99.pdf. 7 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 

and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, § 802 (P.L. 107–56), codified at 18 

USC § 2331. 8Terrorism: Questions & Answers,’’ issue paper by the Council on Foreign Relations and the 

Markle Foundation can be found at http://www.terrorismanswers.org/groups/american2.html. 9 Eric Rudolph plead guilty to 3 bombings in Atlanta, Georgia—including the fatal 1996 Olympics attack which killed one person and injured more than 100—and a blast at a Birmingham, 

AL, women’s clinic that killed an off-duty police officer. 10http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/31/rudolph.profile/index.html. 11http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/13/eric.rudolph/index.html. 12Terrorism: Questions & Answers,’’ issue paper by the Council on Foreign Relations and the 

Markle Foundation can be found at http://www.terrorismanswers.org/groups/american2.html. 13FBI, Strategic Plan 2004-2009, 27, available at http://www.fbi.gov/publications/strategicplan/

strategicplanfull.pdf. 14The Homeland Security Act of 2002, § 101 (P.L. 107–296). 

tic groups with radical agendas, or people inspired by them, will continue their attempts to attack America in order to make their message heard. Thus, law enforcement agencies are continually redefining the line between criminal acts and acts of 

terrorism. The definition of domestic terrorism differs across Federal agencies, but 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which has been designated as the lead 

Federal agency to investigate domestic terrorism or related acts,5 defines domestic 

terrorism as 

the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual 

based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without 

foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce 

a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance 

of political or social objectives.6

The U.S.A. Patriot Act, passed shortly after the September 11 attacks, defines domestic terrorism as criminal acts that ‘‘involve acts dangerous to human life . . . 

and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence 

the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of 

a government—’’ 7

According to a 2004 issue paper written by the Council on Foreign Relations and 

the Markle Foundation, the FBI also distinguishes three primary categories of domestic terrorism: left-wing, right-wing, and special interest.8 Left-wing groups generally are opposed to capitalism, while right-wing groups are opposed to taxation, 

the Federal government, and international organizations, or motivated by racial or 

religious hatred. 

The FBI’s third domestic terror group targets ‘‘special interest’’ issues, which can 

be left or right-wing in affiliation—such as animal rights, environmental protection 

or abortion. While the FBI does not consider these groups to pose a terrorist threat, 

last week’s guilty plea by Eric Rudolph 9 proved that even ‘‘special interest’’ groups 

are capable of conducting attacks beyond their ‘‘traditional’’ targets. Although Eric 

Rudolph and his family were connected with the Christian Identity movement, a 

militant, racist and anti-Semitic organization that believes whites are God’s chosen 

people,10 he indicated that he bombed the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia because he wanted to shame the United States for its legalization of abortion. 

He said his goal was to knock out Atlanta’s power grid and shut down the Olympics.11

FBI officials say right-wing militants—including skinheads, neo-Nazis, violent militia members, and the so-called Christian Patriot movement—now pose America’s 

most serious domestic terrorist threat.12 In fact, white supremacists, traditionally 

the most violent right-wing group, have strengthened their recruiting and rhetoric 

since 9/11.13

DHS’ CURRENT EFFORTS TO FIGHT DOMESTIC TERRORISM

DHS’ Statutory Duties 

Congress established DHS after the 9/11 terror attacks ‘‘to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States.’’ 14 In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, DHS is 

specifically required to 

• identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist threats to the homeland; 

• detect and identify threats of terrorism against the United States; and 
147

15 Homeland Security Act of 2002, § 201 (P.L. 107–296). 16Domestic terrorism is defined in 28 CFR § 0.85 and in the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (P.L. 

107–56). 17Democratic staff of the House Homeland Security Committee conducted a telephone conference call with Department officials on April 15, 2005. 18Democratic staff of the House Homeland Security Committee conducted a telephone conference call with DHS officials on April 15, 2005. 19 Justin Rood, ‘‘Animal Rights Groups and Ecology Militants Make DHS Terrorist List, RightWing Vigilantes Omitted,’’ Congressional Quarterly (March 25, 2005). 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 

• understand such threats in light of actual and potential vulnerabilities of the 

homeland.15

These requirements necessarily include preventing terror attacks posed by domestic groups as well as traditional foreign groups such as Al Qaeda.16

How DHS Defines Threats 

DHS officials noted in staff interviews 17 that the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate reviews intelligence information from the 

FBI, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other intelligence agencies on a daily 

basis. In addition, IAIP also reviews intelligence information from its own agencies 

such as the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. When the Department encounters intelligence information indicating a possible 

terrorist threat, it forwards an investigation request to one of the FBI’s joint terrorist task forces (JTTF), and the FBI then decides how to proceed. 

Regarding domestic terror threats, IAIP officials stated that they analyze the information to determine whether domestic groups possess the ‘‘capability and intent’’ 

to conduct a ‘‘catastrophic’’ attack on U.S. critical infrastructure or resources.18

However, nothing in the Homeland Security Act limits IAIP analysis to ‘‘catastrophic attacks’’ or critical infrastructure or resources. It is unclear why the Department has chosen this limited interpretation of its statutory responsibility to 

identify and assess ‘‘the nature and scope of terrorist threats to the homeland.’’

DHS’ lack of certainty over how to categorize the risk posed by domestic terrorist 

groups is further revealed in its strategic planning. According to a recent news article, DHS distributed a January 2005 budgetary planning document entitled ‘‘Integrated Planning Guidance, Fiscal Years 2005–2011,’’ which identified certain domestic terror groups as posing potential threats to the homeland.19 Given the FBI’s designation of right-wing groups as ‘‘the most serious domestic threat,’’ it is surprising 

that, according to the article, DHS’ planning document did not name right-wing domestic terrorists or terrorist groups as a potential threat. However, the document 

reportedly does list left-wing domestic groups, ‘‘such as the Animal Liberation Front 

(ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF),’’ as terrorist threats.20 A subsequent 

interview with DHS officials revealed that the document included eco-terrorists because they ‘‘will continue to focus their attacks on property damage in an effort to 

change policy.’’ The document notes that although ‘‘publicly ALF and ELF promote 

nonviolence toward human life . . . some members may escalate their attacks.’’ 21

Other terrorism experts still consider right-wing terrorists as serious threats, and 

were surprised that DHS did not. ‘‘They are still a threat, and they will continue 

to be a threat,’’ said Mike German, a 16-year undercover agent for the FBI who 

spent most of his career infiltrating radical right-wing groups. ‘‘If for some reason 

the government no longer considers them a threat, I think they will regret that,’’ 

said German, who left the FBI last year. ‘‘Hopefully it’s an oversight,’’ he added.22

Another terrorism expert, James O. Ellis III, a senior terror researcher for the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), stated that 

whereas left-wing groups, which have been more active recently, have focused mainly on the destruction of property, right-wing groups have a much deadlier and more 

violent record and should be on the list. ‘‘The nature of the history of terrorism is 

that you will see acts in the name of [right-wing] causes in the future.’’ 23

DHS’ Risk Assessment Differs from Other Agency Views 

The war on terror is a huge undertaking that requires consistent cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that each monitor different domestic terror groups based on their agency’s mission. 

The FBI develops and continually revises a long-term strategic plan that identifies 

potential threats, sources of those threats, and actions needed to confront and pre-
148

24Terrorism: Questions & Answers,’’ issue paper by the Council on Foreign Relations and the 

Markle Foundation can be found at http://www.terrorismanswers.org/groups/american2.html. 25FBI Strategic Plan, 15. 26 Justin Rood, ‘‘Animal Rights Groups and Ecology Militants Make DHS Terrorist List, RightWing Vigilantes Omitted,’’ Congressional Quarterly (March 25, 2005). 27Democratic staff of the House Homeland Security Committee conducted a telephone conference call with Department officials on April 15, 2005. 28FBI Strategic Plan, 26; Justin Rood, ‘‘Animal Rights Groups and Ecology Militants Make 

DHS Terrorist List, Right-Wing Vigilantes Omitted,’’ Congressional Quarterly (March 25, 2005). 29Larry Copeland, ‘‘Domestic terrorism: New trouble at home,’’ USA TODAY, November 14, 

2004, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004–11–14-domestic-terrorism—x.htm. 

vent these threats. However, neither the FBI nor any other Federal agency maintains a comprehensive list of domestic terror groups or individuals.24

Nonetheless, the FBI’s Strategic Plan does consider domestic threats from both 

right-wing and left-wing terrorists, stating ‘‘[r]ight-wing extremists exposing antigovernment or racist sentiment, will pose a threat because of their continuing collection of weapons and explosives coupled with their propensity for violence.’’ 25

According to DHS officials, even though the FBI and DHS are working closely, 

they do not consider the same groups to present the same terrorist threat.26 This 

is because they are ‘‘looking for different types of threats.’’ 27 Given the FBI analysis 

of the risk posed by right-wing extremists, it remains unclear why DHS does not 

give higher priority to this threat, such as by mentioning it in the Department’s 

planning document. 

It should be noted that while both the FBI’s Strategic Plan and DHS’ planning 

document both reportedly name Al Qaeda as the greatest threat to the United 

States, the two agencies categorize the risk posed by other international terrorist 

groups differently.28 Considering the emphasis placed on fighting international terrorists since 9/11, if the two agencies are still assessing different risks to these 

groups, then we should be very concerned about their ability to coordinate threat 

assessment of domestic terrorists. 

Post-9/11 Risks and DHS’ Need to Think of Risks ‘‘Outside the Box’’

According to USA Today, there have been some chilling cases of right-wing domestic terrorism planning since 9/11.29 For example, in May, 2004, William Krar, of 

Noonday, Texas, was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison after he stockpiled 

enough sodium cyanide to kill everyone inside a 30,000-square-foot building. Krar, 

described by Federal prosecutors as a white supremacist, also had nine machine 

guns, 67 sticks of explosives and more than 100,000 rounds of ammunition. Investigators and the Federal prosecutor said they didn’t know what Krar intended to 

do with the potentially deadly chemicals. 

The Krar case demonstrates that white supremacists and other right-wing groups 

or individuals can obtain the capability to perform a large-scale terrorist attack in 

America on a scale similar to those Al Qaeda seeks to conduct. If DHS’ planning 

document and difference in approach to right-wing domestic terrorism compared to 

the FBI are any indication of the type of threat analysis the Department is conducting, then there may be a failure to think of risks ‘‘outside the box’’ that is eerily 

reminiscent of the intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attacks. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are many opportunities for DHS to revise its approach and think as creatively as some right-wing terrorists may. 

• DHS must reassess the threat posed by right-wing domestic terrorists and revise its long-term planning to address this risk. 

First and foremost, DHS must return to its overall statutory mandate to determine ‘‘the nature and scope of terrorist threats to the homeland’’ by including in 

its long-term planning a genuine consideration of the risks posed by right-wing domestic terrorists. Without this planning, the intelligence analysts and agents on the 

front-line may not get the budgetary and administrative support they need from 

above. 

• Congress or DHS should establish an advisory council of groups with experience 

monitoring right-wing domestic terrorists 

There are several organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the 

Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Association for 

the Advancement of Colored People, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the National Abortion Federation, and others with long-standing experience 

in monitoring right-wing domestic terrorist groups and assessing their danger. Congress or DHS should establish an advisory council of these groups in order to ensure 
149

that the Department has as much information as possible about the risks right-wing 

domestic terrorists pose. • DHS and the FBI should work together to create and maintain a comprehensive 

list of domestic terror groups or individuals. 

DHS and the FBI should close the security gap identified by the Council on comprehensive list of domestic terror groups or individuals. • DHS must expand its definition of ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ for purposes of collecting intelligence on domestic terror groups. 

DHS must redefine its definition of ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ to include those ‘‘soft 

targets’’ most at risk of attack by right-wing domestic terrorists. Just as Al Qaeda 

may want to destroy prominent symbols of America authority and inflict mass casualties, as on 9/11, and left-wing domestic environmental terrorist groups may attack what they perceive as anti-environmental structures, such as dams, right-wing 

domestic terrorists may strike at what best communicates their message of hate. 

For example, a single African-American church in a large city can have several 

thousand people in it on a Sunday, and large inner-city schools can have thousands 

of minority students. Both of these could be prime targets for an attack by a white 

supremacist group. 

We cannot protect every ‘‘soft-target’’ as well as we can protect ‘‘hard targets,’’ like 

airplanes or nuclear power plants, but DHS should consider these risks when evaluating the stream of intelligence ‘‘chatter’’ it receives on right-wing domestic terrorists. If this intelligence reveals a credible threat, DHS must work closely with the 

FBI and other law enforcement authorities, but it should also provide the threatened entity with at least some recommendations on how to reduce its risk. 

• DHS must think ‘‘outside the box’’ about the types of attacks right-wing domestic terrorists may conduct. 

Eric Rudolph’s bombing of Atlanta’s Olympic Park in order to raise his anti-abortion views demonstrates that right-wing domestic terrorists may choose to attack a 

symbol that is not directly associated with their particular political objection in 

order to prove their point. DHS must consider these risks when evaluating the 

threats to critical infrastructure as well as to everyday large-scale events. For example, large gatherings of women, such as a ‘‘Take Back the Night’’ rally, could be a 

target for right-wing anti-abortion terrorists. 

America as a whole should not develop paranoid views about the risks to every 

place or event posed by unassociated domestic terrorists, but that does not mean 

that intelligence analysts and law enforcement should not consider these risks and 

consider basic precautions to prevent them. 

• The FBI and DHS should work closely to set government-wide standards for focusing on right-wing domestic terrorists and sharing information on these risks. 

By focusing on both left and right-wing domestic terrorists, the FBI has a considerably more thorough view of domestic terrorism than DHS. As the lead agency in 

fighting domestic terrorism, the FBI should work to ensure that DHS and other 

agencies understand the risks posed by right-wing domestic terrorists. 

Additionally, while DHS should not interfere with ongoing FBI investigations, the 

Department should have access to the relevant data it needs to make a determination of the risks to America posed by right-wing domestic terrorists. According to 

IAIP officials, this type of information sharing is presently occurring, but the two 

agencies should be constantly vigilant to ensure it continues. If Congress must act 

to ensure any bureaucratic ‘‘stovepipes’’ of information are eliminated, than it 

should do so. A prime lesson from 9/11 was that failures to share information can 

lead to catastrophic results. 

STATEMENT OF MINDY KURSBAN, ESQ., GENERAL COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to address and clarify the 

false allegations made about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 

(Physicians Committee) by the Director of Research for the so-called ‘‘Center for 

Consumer Freedom,’’ a lobbying group for the restaurant, food, tobacco, and alcohol 

industries. 

The Physicians Committee is a nonprofit health advocacy organization founded in 

1985 that currently has over 100,000 members and supporters. The Physicians Committee conducts clinical research studies, advocates for preventive medicine, and 

promotes higher standards in research. The Physicians Committee’s research studies have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals such as the American 

Journal of Cardiology, the Archives of Family Medicine, Preventive Medicine, and 

Obstetrics and Gynecology, among others. The Physicians Committee educates the 
150

public through extensive publication of materials such as books, brochures, booklets, 

and audio tapes; exhibiting at medical, nutrition, and scientific conferences; and developing, publishing, and submitting public service announcements promoting preventive medicine, working with celebrities such as Keenen Ivory Wayans, Alicia 

Silverstone, Ed Asner, Marilu Henner, Bill Maher, Alexandra Paul, and Ziggy 

Marley. 

The President of the Physicians Committee is a federally funded nutrition researcher, author of eight books on diet and health, and an adjunct faculty member 

at the George Washington University Medical Center. They Physicians Committee’s 

Director of Research and Senior Toxicology Advisor, who has his Doctorate in Toxicology from Emory University, is a former EPA employee, where he served on the 

Pesticide Research Committee, worked as toxicology team leader, and served as senior author of numerous EPA documents. He is currently a core expert panel member 

for the EPA’s Voluntary Children’s Chemical Exposure Program. Our Nutrition Director, who has his Masters of Public Health degree and his Doctorate in Public 

Health Nutrition from California’s Loma Linda University, conducted a postdoctoral 

fellowship at the University of California-Davis’ Department of Nutrition, and 

served as a nutritionist for the USDA Western Human Nutrition Center in California. Information about other staff members and consultants of the Physicians 

Committee can be found at PCRM.org/news/experts.

The Physicians Committee is an independent 501(c)(3) organization supported primarily by public donations. The Physicians Committee is affiliated with only three 

other organizations: The PCRM Foundation, Washington Center for Clinical Research, and The Cancer Project. Each of these is a not-for-profit charitable corporation recognized as tax exempt under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). The 

Foundation, in addition, is recognized as tax exempt under IRS Code section 

509(a)(3) as a supporting organization. 

It is one of the Physicians Committee’s core principles that research involving 

human subjects must be in accordance with the highest ethical standards and all 

applicable laws. We also extend this concept of ethics and morality to animal research subjects. Research, testing, and educational exercises involving animal subjects virtually always involve significant suffering and ultimately the deaths of the 

animals involved. As such, it is incumbent on investigators, educators, and research 

institutions to incorporate non-animal research methods without limit. 

In accordance with these principles, in 2001, the Physicians Committee signed a 

letter with Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty asking the recipient companies to review two scientific critiques of animal experiments conducted at Huntington Life 

Sciences (HLS) because of HLS’s documented abuses to animals and inappropriate 

animal experimentation. It was noted that because of the myriad anatomical, physiological, and pathological differences between human and other animals, toxicity or 

carcinogenicity tests on animals are poor indicators for safety and effectiveness in 

humans. The Physicians Committee has had no other involvement with Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty aside from writing this single request that companies choose 

better options. 

The Physicians Committee also maintains the principle that when physicians are 

exercising their obligation to advocate for the life and health of patients and to safeguard the subjects of research, they shall adhere to and promote the principles of 

nonviolent advocacy. As such, no person acting as a Physicians Committee spokesperson has ever advocated violence, nor would the Physicians Committee tolerate 

any such comment. If any person speaking on his or her own behalf were to make 

comments that could be interpreted as condoning violence, such a person would not 

be eligible to act as a Physicians Committee spokesperson. 

We note that ‘‘Center for Consumer Freedom,’’ quoted comments from Jerry 

Vlasak, M.D. Dr. Vlasak is not a Physicians Committee spokesperson, has not been 

one for some time, and made no comments related to the topics cited while acting 

as a Physicians Committee spokesperson. 

Despite all the rhetoric surrounding the issue of animal research, most Americans 

agree that animal research should be performed humanely or, better yet, not at all 

when an alternative exists. In furtherance of this laudatory goal, we would suggest 

that, rather than vilify those who express concern about animals through lawful and 

peaceful means, Congress direct the National Institutes of Health to shift an ample 

percentage of its funding for animal research to finding non-animal research methods and funding studies using non-animal research.

Æ