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

27–742 PDF 2006

ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 4239

MAY 23, 2006

Serial No. 109–125

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Chief Counsel 

DAVID BRINK, Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Counsel 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 23, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

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

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES 

Mr. Brent McIntosh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Ms. Michele Basso, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, 

University of Wisconsin 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14

Mr. William Trundley, Vice President, Global Corporate Security and Investigations, GlaxoSmithKline 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17

Mr. William Potter, Journalist 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

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

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 37

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas .................................................................. 40

Prepared Statement of the Honorable James Inhofe, U.S. Senator, Committee 

on Environment and Public Works ..................................................................... 42

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Thomas E. Petri, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Wisconsin ........................................................... 44

Prepared Statement of Mr. Frankie L. Trull, President, National Association 

for Biomedical Research ...................................................................................... 46

Prepared Statement of Dr. Bruce R. Bistrian, President of the Federation 

of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) ............................... 51

Prepared Statement of Mr. Mark L. Bibi, General Counsel, Life Sciences 

Research ................................................................................................................ 60

Prepared Statement of Ms. Gale Davy, Executive Director, Wisconsin Association for Biomedical Research & Education ........................................................ 63

Prepared Statement of Mr. Keith Kaplan, Executive Director, Fur Information Council of America ....................................................................................... 66

Prepared Statement of Mr. Wesley J. Smith, J.D., Senior Fellow, Discovery 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 70

Page

IV

Prepared Statement of Mr. James C. Greenwood, President and CEO, Biotechnology Industry Organization ...................................................................... 79

Prepared Statement of the California Healthcare Institute (CHI) ...................... 83

Results of Preliminary Survey of Threat Posed by Animal Rights Extremists, 

Conducted by the California Healthcare Institute (CHI) ................................. 86

Letter to the Honorable Howard Coble from the Animal Enterprise Protection 

Coalition (AEPC) .................................................................................................. 87

Letter from F2 Chemicals Ltd ................................................................................ 90

Letter to the Subcommittee on Crime Terrrorism, and Homeland Security 

from Dr. Amanda Carson Banks, President and CEO, the California Biomedical Research Association ............................................................................. 93

Letter to the U.S. Committee on Animal Rights Extremism from Mrs. Wendy 

Bantin ................................................................................................................... 95

Top 20 List of Illegal Actions by Animal and Eco-Terrorists, 1996–2006, 

Complied by the Foundation for Biomedical Research ..................................... 96

News Article, Animal research does not validate trespass ................................... 103

(1)

ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT 

TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 

Today the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security is conducting a legislative hearing on H.R. 4239, the ‘‘Animal 

Enterprise Terrorism Act,’’ which was introduced on November 4, 

2005, by several of our colleagues. And the lead sponsor is the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Petri, whom I recognize 

in the audience today, along with Chairman Sensenbrenner, and 

Representatives Issa, McCotter, Cannon, Bonilla, Calvert, Otter, 

Boren, Blackburn and Doolittle. 

H.R. 4239 was introduced in response to a growing threat commonly referred to as ecoterrorism. While we are still responding to 

the threat about international terrorism, groups of impassioned 

animal supporters have unfortunately employed tactics to disrupt 

animal research and related businesses by terrorizing their employees. Today’s testimony will detail what employees have come to 

fear, but it is safe to say that their fear is real and justified. 

This practice originated with protests against companies conducting animal research. The protests became violent, and as they 

continue in severity, they are now being focused on employees of 

businesses with any remote relationship to the primary research. 

The range of potential victims includes employees of banking, insurance, securities and pharmaceutical companies, and even universities. 

Dr. Tom O’Connor of North Carolina Wesleyan College teaches a 

course on the different types of terrorism. According to Dr. O’Connor, and I quote, ‘‘Ecoterrorism involves extremist views on environmental issues and animal rights, and is a fringe-issue form of 

terrorism aimed primarily at inflicting economic damage on those 

seen as profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the environment,’’ closed quote. Dr. O’Connor distinguishes the environmentalist movement from the more extreme ecoterrorists in this 

way, and again I quote, quote, ‘‘Environmentalists work within the 

system for preservation, and ecoterrorists seem to want to destroy 

civilization as we know it in order to save the planet,’’ closed quote. 

2

Because many of these acts are not considered an offense under 

the current animal enterprise terrorism statute, that is, 18 U.S. 

Code 43, H.R. 4239 would expand the reach of the animal enterprise terrorism statute to specifically include the use of force, violence or threats against entities that do business with animal enterprise organizations. Specifically, the legislation would prohibit 

the international damaging of property—or strike that—the intentional damaging of property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with or transactions with an animal enterprise, and make it a criminal act to intentionally place a person in 

reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to that person or 

his or her family because of his or her relationship with the animal 

enterprise. 

Since the bill has been introduced, the Committee has been approached by a couple of groups with concerns about ensuring first 

amendment protections that are included for lawful protests, boycotts and other activities. The legislation was not intended to infringe on these rights in any way. Accordingly, a manager’s amendment clarifying that those rights will continue to be protected was 

included in Members’ packets and will be introduced at a subsequent markup on which Members can cast their votes. 

I have received numerous statements to be entered into the 

record in support of this bill, including statements from the House 

and Senate sponsors of this legislation, Representative Petri, who 

I mentioned earlier, and Senator Inhofe, the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma. 

And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and especially would like to thank Dr. Michele Basso and Bill Trundley 

for their willingness to testify about their experiences. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Petri follows in the Appendix] 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows in the Appendix] 

Mr. COBLE. At this time I am pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Bobby Scott. 

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

for holding a markup on H.R. 4239, the ‘‘Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.’’ Apparently, our current Federal law that was designed 

to protect businesses and employees in animal enterprises are 

doing a pretty good job. However, many of these businesses and 

employees are now complaining that other businesses and nonprofits and their employees, board members and family members 

with whom they are affiliated are being stalked, harassed, intimidated. They have had their businesses, homes or cars vandalized, 

and some individuals even physically assaulted. 

Indications are that animal rights groups that have used extreme 

tactics to press their point of view were taking advantage of the 

fact that animal enterprise laws do not cover these types of secondary relationships to wage a campaign of threats, harassment, 

intimidation and fear-mongering in an effort to have them sever 

their relationships with targeted animal enterprises. This bill was 

designed to cover these perceived gaps or loopholes in the current 

animal enterprise protection laws. 

3

Citizens engaging in lawful activities as well as those associated 

with them are entitled to be protected from criminal acts and to be 

able to go about their lawful activities free from threats to their 

person or property and that of their family and associates. State 

laws are generally good at providing those protections. However, 

the interstate nature of the planning and conduct of these criminal 

and harassment tactics by groups skilled at avoiding the laws 

make it difficult for States to effectively get at some of the problems, and that is what the bill is designed to cover. 

While we must protect those engaged in lawful animal enterprises, we must also protect the right of those engaged in their first 

amendment freedoms and expressions regarding such enterprises. 

The issue was acknowledged and addressed in the bill. However, 

we received concerns that protections do not go far enough to ensure that first amendment freedoms are not compromised. 

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of your proposals to further improvements in this area, and I want to work with you to ensure that we 

provide the protections of lawful activities that are needed here 

without jeopardizing first amendment freedoms. Included in those 

freedoms, Mr. Chairman, is a right to engage in peaceful civil disobedience, and I’m not sure the proposals adequately take that into 

account. If a group’s intention were to stage a sit-down, lie-down 

or to block traffic to a targeted facility, they certainly run the risk 

of arrest for whatever traffic, trespass or other laws they are 

breaking, but they should not be held any more accountable for 

business losses due to delivery trucks being delayed any more than 

anyone else guilty of such activities. 

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the bill treats conspiracies 

and attempts the same as a completion of an offense. While someone who has not completed an offense solely because they were 

caught by law enforcement before the completion should not be rewarded, I believe we should also encourage potential offenders to 

change their mind at any time. Insisting that offenders who decide 

not to go through with an offense will get the same sentence as if 

they had only helps ringleaders or others promote the philosophy 

that if I am going to be shot for being a wolf, I might as well eat 

the sheep. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to testimony by witnesses to 

see how we can strike a proper balance between protecting lawful 

activities and our first amendment freedoms. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

[The information referred to follows in the Appendix] 

Mr. COBLE. Lady and gentlemen, it is the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses appearing before it, so if you 

would, please, stand and raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. COBLE. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. And you may be seated. 

We have a distinguished panel today. Ladies and gentlemen, we 

are glad to welcome the rest of you in the audience as well. Our 

first witness is Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brent McIntosh. 

Mr. McIntosh is a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the 

United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy. Prior 

to joining the Justice Department, Mr. McIntosh was an attorney 

4

with the New York law firm of Sullivan and Cornwell. He also 

served as a law clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 

Mr. McIntosh was awarded an undergraduate degree from the 

University of Michigan and holds a J.D. from Yale University. 

Our second witness is Dr. Michele Basso. Dr. Basso is an assistant professor with the University of Wisconsin’s Department of 

Physiology, Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences. Dr. Basso’s current emphasis is on understanding normal brain mechanisms controlling complex behaviors and how these mechanisms go awry in 

movement-disordered states. This research seeks to reveal the 

neurophysiological underpinnings of movement disorders such as 

Parkinson’s disease, Huntingdon’s disease and dystonia. Her research is highly coordinated with practicing clinicians, and in some 

instances uses animal models, in particular the rhesus monkey. Dr. 

Basso received her doctorate from SUNY in Stony Brook. 

Ophthalmologist, I just wanted to make sure I can say it, Doctor. 

Our third witness is Mr. William Trundley, Vice President of 

Corporate Security and Investigations for GlaxoSmithKline. Mr. 

Trundley has global responsibility for a range of areas, including 

countering extremist activity against the company and its employees, product security, protection of personnel information and assets, security risk analysis and investigations. 

Mr. Trundley has served for 24 years as a major with the Royal 

Military Police Special Investigation Branch during which time he 

undertook a variety of assignments in several overseas areas, including Europe, North America and the Far East. Mr. Trundley 

holds an M.S. from Western University and a United States diploma in security management. 

Our final witness today, Mr. William Potter. Mr. Potter is a freelance reporter based in Washington, D.C., and has focused attention on animal rights and environmental activists whose activities 

result in prosecutions and the civil rights implications involved. He 

has written for publications including the Chicago Tribune, The 

Dallas Morning News, Legal Affairs, The Chronicle of Higher Education, In These Times, The Texas Observer, The Washington City 

Paper, Z and CounterPunch. Mr. Potter was graduated summa cum 

laude from the University of Texas at Austin with a degree in journalism. 

We’ve been privileged to be joined by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Delahunt. 

So Mr. McIntosh, why don’t you be our lead-off hitter today, and 

we will let Mr. Potter be the clean-up hitter. And as we have told 

you all previously, folks, Mr. Scott and I try to operate under the 

5-minute rule. When the amber light appears before you on the 

panel, that is your warning that you have 1 minute remaining. 

Now you will not be keel-hauled if you fail to conclude in 5 minutes. When the red light appears, that’s your warning that 5 minutes have elapsed, and if you could wrap up at that point. 

Mr. McIntosh. 

5

TESTIMONY OF BRENT McINTOSH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Scott, Congressmen. Good morning. 

On behalf of the Department of Justice, I thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding the Department’s efforts to investigate and prosecute those who threaten violence and commit criminal acts in the name of protecting animals. 

The Department remains dedicated to protecting the American 

people from the threat of violence imposed by extremists, while at 

the same time protecting the first amendment rights guaranteed to 

all Americans. 

We have had some success in prosecuting animal rights extremists. Most recently, on March 2, 2006, six members of an animal 

rights group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or SHAC, 

were convicted of inciting attacks on those who worked for or did 

business with Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British company that 

runs an animal testing laboratory. 

As demonstrated by the SHAC convictions, extremists have not 

hesitated to use violence and the threat of violence to further their 

social and political goals. In some cases, such as those involving 

arson or explosives, Federal prosecutors are well equipped to prosecute and punish extremists, but not all animal rights extremists 

use arson and explosives. 

In pursuit of its goal of closing Huntingdon Life Sciences’ animal 

testing operations, SHAC and its sympathizers have employed a 

wide variety of harassing and intimidating techniques which SHAC 

itself calls its, quote, ‘‘top 20 terror tactics,’’ end quote, designed to 

terrorize SHAC’s targets while avoiding an effective law enforcement response. For example, these violent extremists have advocated and facilitated such direct actions as vandalizing—including 

fire-bombing homes, businesses and cars—fraud and ID theft; making bomb threats or threats to harm or kill targets, targets’ partners, targets’ children. 

To target these techniques, SHAC has posted on the Internet 

law-abiding employees’ home telephone numbers, the names of 

their spouses and children, even the schools where those children 

attend. In short, these extremists are engaged in a nationwide 

campaign to place law-abiding citizens in a reasonable fear of death 

or of serious bodily injury to themselves or their loved ones. 

Although the existing Animal Enterprise Protection Act is an important tool for prosecutors, animal rights extremists have tailored 

their campaigns to exploit limits and ambiguities in the statute by 

targeting individuals and businesses associated with the animal 

enterprise rather than the animal enterprise itself. Considered individually, these actions are State crimes, but local police often 

lack the investigative resources and nationwide perspective to put 

these local offenses into context as a multijurisdictional campaign 

of violence. So while the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey can prosecute 

some of SHAC’s crimes under the existing statute, most of the 

charges brought in that prosecution came under the interstate 

stalking statute. 

6

The bill under consideration today would fill gaps in the current 

law, and the Department supports it. Most important, as the Ranking Member said, the existing statute’s focus on physical disruption 

of the actual animal enterprise permits the argument that it does 

not cover a campaign that harms the animal enterprise, not directly, but by targeting persons and entities that do business with 

an animal enterprise. H.R. 4239 would make clear that committing 

the proscribed conduct against an employee of an animal enterprise 

or against an entity related to an animal enterprise is equally illegal. 

Before I conclude, let me spend a moment on people the Department does not prosecute. The Department is acutely aware of the 

importance of protecting the first amendment rights of those who 

lawfully protest the treatment of animals. Let me say this as clearly as I can: The Department does not prosecute and does not wish 

to prosecute those who lawfully seek to persuade others. On this 

issue the Department has found wide common ground with members of the Humane Society and the ACLU. We recently met with 

both groups. We all agree that any tactic or strategy of involving 

violence or threats of violence is not to be tolerated. On the other 

hand, we are committed to ensuring that the law has no chilling 

effect on lawful activities designed merely to persuade. 

This proposed law builds on existing concepts in the Federal 

Criminal Code, and as a legal matter breaks no new ground. Still, 

the Department has heard the concerns of the Humane Society and 

the ACLU, has seen the manager’s amendment, and is happy to 

work with the Subcommittee to leave no doubt that nothing in the 

law prohibits any expressive conduct protected by the first amendment. 

The great majority of animal rights advocates make their case 

through lawful first amendment activity, but those who cross the 

line from free speech to criminal conduct should be prosecuted and 

punished appropriately, and prosecutors should have the tools to 

make sure that happens. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting us here today. We 

thank this Subcommittee for its continued leadership and support, 

and we welcome your questions. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. McIntosh. And your timing was superb, you ended at the right time with the red light. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntosh follows:]

7

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRENT J. MCINTOSH


BJM0001.eps
8


BJM0002.eps
9


BJM0003.eps
10


BJM0004.eps
11


BJM0005.eps
12


BJM0006.eps
13

Mr. COBLE. The pressure is on you, Dr. Basso. Good to have you 

with us, Dr. Basso. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHELE BASSO, Ph.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF 

WISCONSIN 

Dr. BASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, 

and other Congresspersons for the invitation to speak to you about 

my experiences. 

I am an assistant professor of physiology at the University of 

Wisconsin. I am also an affiliate of the Wisconsin Regional Primate 

Center because of my work with nonhuman primates, and our goal 

is to try to understand the brain mechanisms of Parkinson’s disease, which, as you know, is a debilitating disorder of movement. 

We work together very closely with neurologists and neurosurgeons who develop state-of-the-art techniques for treating Parkinson’s disease, and our goal is to understand how these techniques work and how to improve them in order to increase the 

quality of life for patients who suffer from movement disorders 

such as Parkinson’s disease. 

My experience with animal rights activity began about 3 years 

or so ago. And two organizations at the University of Wisconsin 

tried to purchase property immediately adjacent to two of the primate centers located on campus, the Harlow Lab and the Wisconsin Regional Primate Center. They rented it with an option to 

purchase, and their mission or their goal, stated goal, was to establish a holocaust museum for the monkeys that were killed in the 

research programs going on at the Primate Center. 

The second thing was these two groups also started a meeting on 

campus monthly called Primate Vivisection, A to Z, where they talk 

about—or try to engage investigators to discuss animal research 

and also the use of animals in research. Because of the chancellor 

at the university’s commitment to free speech, of course, these programs continue on campus, and they use university facilities. 

Now, I first heard of these activists, the same groups, with respect to a protest that took place at the University of Wisconsin, 

and with targeting members of the University of Wisconsin at their 

homes. I was among eight of the faculty members and the academic 

staff who were targeted. Although they went to the wrong home—

they didn’t have my correct address—what they did was they appeared at homes with a truck that had a video monitor on it displaying images of animals in cages, and they shouted with bullhorns obscenities and defamatory statements about the persons in 

the home, went and rang the doorbell and ran away and various 

activity like that—activities such as that. They also handed out fliers with my photograph and contact information, as well as sort of 

defamatory statements regarding me and my research. 

So in response to this—I was very nervous and concerned about 

my safety, so I tried to protect myself in two ways. The first was 

I removed my name from the Internet sites where you can go to 

the tax assessor’s office and find out the property that a person 

owns by typing in their name. So I removed that from the Website. 

And the second thing I did was to hire an attorney to quit-claim 

deed my house into another name so that if someone were to go 

14

to the tax assessor’s office, they would not be able to find out where 

I lived or my home address. 

But within 2 months’ time—less than 2 months, I started to receive magazine subscriptions. First they came slowly, but then they 

came rather aggressively. I have over 50-plus magazine subscriptions and various paraphernalia. I also received various books, the 

titles of which are things like fatal—′′Oh, What a Slaughter,’’ ‘‘Fatal Burn,’’ ‘‘Predator,’’ ‘‘The Perfect Orgasm,’’ things like this. At 

the same time, I received two phone calls, voice messages, anonymous voice messages, through a messaging service that said something to the effect of, Hello, Michele, we know you’re a monkey killer, and you can’t get away from us. We hope you enjoy the magazines that you are receiving. And you will never get away, even 

though you tried to change the name on your house, things like 

that. So there were at least two of those messages. 

So I guess I can’t stress the critical impact that this has had on 

me and my ability to do my work. And I know that a number of 

my colleagues across the country experience similar targeting as 

well as more violent and aggressive—one colleague has had their 

house windows broken and their yards destroyed in California, for 

example. 

So it’s critical, also, to point out that the work that I do is subject 

to very strict regulations and oversight, and we have at least five 

animal care and use committees on campus that regulate what we 

do. And we also abide by the 3R principles for research: We reduce, 

refine or replace our animal models whenever possible. And when 

we are doing that already, we are required to justify why we don’t 

do it even more. So working on animals, we believe, is a privilege, 

and one that we don’t take lightly. 

So I would like to just thank all of you for considering this important legislation and hearing my testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Doctor. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Basso follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHELE BASSO

My name is Michele Basso. I am an Assistant Professor of Physiology at the University of Wisconsin Madison Medical School. I am also affiliated with the Wisconsin 

Regional Primate Center because my laboratory studies primates as a model to understand Parkinson’s Disease. Our research, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Parkinson Disease Foundation, focuses on how the brain 

integrates visual information to produce movement. As you all know, Parkinson’s 

disease is a debilitating neurodegenerative disease that is caused by a defect in the 

brain’s ability to correctly initiate and control movement. I work together with neurologists and neurosurgeons across the country who treat Parkinson’s patients with 

state of the art surgical therapies. In the laboratory, we use non human primates 

to understand the mechanisms of action of these therapies in order to improve them. 

Finally, our work on non human primates together with our work on humans will 

improve the quality of life of patients suffering from movement disorders such as 

Parkinson’s disease. 

About 3 years ago, an FBI agent opened a case for me because I received an email 

from an unknown source calling me an animal killer and equating me with Dr. 

Mengele, the war criminal who tortured humans during the Nazi era. At the same 

time, a colleague told me that my home address was circulating through an animal 

rights chat group. These events followed a Freedom of Information Act request for 

my animal use protocol, to the Director of the WI Primate Center. 

Since then, animal rights activists have been active on campus. First, the Wisconsin Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Group rented, with an option 

to purchase, a piece of property immediately adjacent to the two primate centers—

The Harlow Lab and the WRPC. The groups referred to the building as the upcomVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:14 Sep 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\052306\27742.000 HJUD2 PsN: 27742
15

ing ‘‘Holocaust Museum’’ designed to remember the monkeys killed by researchers 

at the two primate centers. Second, some time around September 2005, a monthly 

meeting, held on the University campus called ‘‘Primate Vivisection from A to Z’’ began. Since the University is committed to the free speech rights of all members 

of the community, the Wisconsin Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom 

Group were granted access to University property and facilities for these meetings. 

The stated purpose of these meetings is to inform the University and surrounding 

community about the research going on at the Primate Centers and to establish a 

dialogue with investigators regarding the use of animals in research. These meetings are still occurring. 

In October 2005, the UW Madison police department contacted me and informed 

me of an upcoming animal rights protest. I would be one of 8 University members 

who would be targeted at their homes. 

The animal rights protest consisted of a truck with a video screen on three sides. 

The screens displayed images of non human primates in cages. The truck was 

parked outside people’s homes and a group of activists with bullhorns harassed the 

people inside the homes. The name of the person was shouted along with accusations such as monkey killer or animal abuser. The protestors would run to the front 

door, ring the bell and run away. They circulated flyers about the individual to the 

neighbors. Over the course of one week, they attended the homes of 7 of the 8 people, the two primate center directors, one academic staff and 4 scientists. 5 of these 

7 people directly targeted were female. Of the 51 non-human primate investigators 

on campus, only 11 of these are women. 

The activists attempted to go to my home but made a mistake and protested in 

front of the wrong house. They circulated a flyer throughout the neighborhood containing my photograph and incorrect contact information as well as a number of 

misstatements regarding my research program and personal attacks on my competency. They also wrote with chalk on the sidewalk covering an area approximately 

3 feet by 5 feet that said, ‘‘Basso Animal Abuser’’. When people disagree they are entitled to exert their first amendment rights. For 

example, if a group does not agree with a potential legislative action, they protest 

at the government office or in public squares, but not in front of private homes. Protests at private homes serve what purpose other than to malign people and their 

children, intimidate and frighten families in their homes? 

After this disturbing set of events, I attempted to protect myself by doing two 

things. First, anyone can go online to the tax assessor’s office web page and look 

up a name to find a home address. I contacted the office and requested that they 

remove my name from the web site. Second, removal from the web does not eliminate access to the information. Anyone can still go to the office and look up personal 

information. So I hired an attorney to quit claim deed my home into another name. 

In this way, my name would not be associated with any property in Madison. 

In slightly less than 2 months time, I received a magazine to which I did not subscribe. Then I received a couple more magazines. I started to receive statements 

from magazine companies indicating that I placed gift subscriptions to others on 

campus. I received in total approximately 50+ magazine subscriptions and other 

mail-order paraphernalia. 

At the same time I received two anonymous voice messages from a messaging 

agency. Both messages had very similar content and I paraphrase: ‘Hello Michele, 

we know you are a monkey killer. We hope you are enjoying the magazines you 

have been receiving. You cannot get away from us.’ The second message said the 

same but included a statement like, ‘you cannot hide from us even though you 

changed the name on your house. You will never get away from us.’

In addition to the magazine subscriptions, I received two book club subscriptions. 

Each arrived with an initial shipment of ∼ hardcover books. Some of the titles of 

these books include ‘‘Fatal Burn’’ ‘‘Oh What a Slaughter’’ ‘‘Predator’’ ‘‘The Perfect 

Orgasm’’ and the like. As I am sure you can appreciate, these activities take up an 

enormous amount of my time. I was reported to a credit agency due to delinquency 

for a magazine subscription but because the FBI is investigating these events, I 

have a case number I supply to the companies to correct these issues. 

It is critical to point out that biomedical research is subject to very strict regulations and oversight. We have an animal care and use committee for each school at 

Madison and an all campus committee that oversees all schools. My research meets 

or exceeds all standards set by the USDA, Public Health Service Policy as well as 

local guidelines for the care and use of non human primates in research. We abide 

by the well-known 3R principle concerning the use of animals. Whenever we can, 

we reduce the numbers of animals used, we replace the animal model with some 

other or we refine the technique we use to ensure maximal well-being of the animals. When we already meet the 3R requirements, we are required to justify why 

16

we cannot reduce or refine more. Working on animals is a privilege that neither I, 

nor my colleagues take lightly. 

I would like to thank all of you for considering this important legislation. I believe 

it is important that we protect the free speech rights of all individuals. It is equally 

important for me to be able to come and go from work and my home and not feel 

threatened, intimidated, harassed or slandered. I have a right to live free of fear. 

Thank you very much.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Trundley. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM TRUNDLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL CORPORATE SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

GLAXOSMITHKLINE 

Mr. TRUNDLEY. Good morning, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Bill 

Trundley, and I’m the vice president of corporate security and investigations for GlaxoSmithKline. 

GSK is targeted by animal rights extremists because of our relationship with Huntingdon Life Sciences. This is secondary targeting. Tertiary targeting involves similar violent attacks against 

companies and individuals merely because they have a relationship 

with GSK. 

In the past 21 months in the U.S., GSK has experienced 150 incidents, including 75 intimidating home demonstrations and 10 cases 

of serious damage to property, which have traumatized employees, 

their families and their children. In all of these, the common 

thread has been fear, intimidation and the threat of violence, as 

you can see from this poster, which depicts a T-shirt with a picture 

of an AK-47 assault rifle and glorifying violence against researchers. 

This other exhibit is a SHAC terror card used by extremists to 

threaten employees and their families. Some of these terrorist acts 

against our employees include mail theft, which reveal the spouse’s 

alcohol treatment program. They left a bottle of beer at her door 

with a note saying, ‘‘Have a drink, bitch,’’ and then went to her 

son’s school to hand out this disgraceful flier to his classmates. 

They also left a message on the family phone saying, ‘‘We’ve been 

watching you, and we know you’re alone.’’ Several employees’ homes have been attacked at night, smashing 

windows while they slept. In Philadelphia, an employee was threatened by an extremist who yelled at her, ‘‘I have your license plate; 

we’ll track you down and we’ll kill your family.’’ In Baltimore, an 

employee was contacted late at night asking her to come to the city 

morgue to identify a relative who died. On arrival, she learned the 

call was a hoax. One employee’s 8-year-old son was so traumatized 

by these incidents, he would wake up at night staring out of the 

window, so scared that the terrorists would return. And in some 

cases, over 100 extremists have terrified employees at their homes 

like a baying, screaming lynch mob. 

We have noticed an increase in the frequency and severity of 

these acts, which also involve others merely because of their association with GSK, and these include attacks against people who 

work for universities, charities and other companies. Their homes, 

cars and other property have been wrecked. And in one case a retiree in Long Beach, New Jersey, had his home and car damaged 

simply because his name was the same as a GSK employee’s; he 

17

had no connection with GSK, and it was a case of mistaken identity. 

Now, GSK has received excellent support from law enforcement, 

but continues to be targeted; and to date, none of the acts against 

GSK has resulted in a criminal conviction. This is because the current laws are inadequate. We believe that H.R. 4239 will enable 

law enforcement to deal effectively with these crimes, and we urge 

Congress to pass this legislation. 

The situation today in the U.S. Is similar to what we experienced 

in the U.K. 5 years ago. In the first 6 months of 2001, GSK employees in London experienced over 3,000 separate actions by animal 

extremists. Prominent U.S. Extremists spent a year or more in the 

U.K. During 2002 where they were seen to associate with leading 

U.K. Extremists. At that time there was little support from the 

U.K. Police, who could never apply appropriate resources to deal 

with the situation. 

The extremists became emboldened and placed fire bombs at the 

homes of our employees while their children were asleep in the 

house; destroyed entire buildings and other property; terrorized 

employees, their families and their children. A year ago, the U.K. 

Government introduced an effective piece of legislation and gave 

additional resources to the police. We are now seeing the benefits 

of this. 

My advice to the Chairman and Members today is if the U.S. 

doesn’t act now, they will face the same level of violent escalation 

and endangerment to the lives of American citizens. 

I would like to finish by saying that before any new medicine can 

be used on humans, it is necessary to test their safety on animals, 

as required by Federal law. And those involved in scientific research are regular people trying to earn a living, raise a family and 

provide a decent future for their children. They are committed to 

the discovery of new medicines to help cure serious illness and disease; yet it is they and their families and associates who are left 

to suffer at the hands of violent extremists. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Trundley. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trundley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TRUNDLEY

Good afternoon, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Bill Trundley, I am the Vice President of Corporate Security & Investigations for GlaxoSmithKline and I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee regarding the impact of Animal Rights Extremists (ARE) on GSK employees as well as other individuals who have been targeted 

solely because of their relationship with GSK. 

GlaxoSmithKline is one of the world’s leading healthcare companies that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets pharmaceuticals, vaccines, over-thecounter medicines and health-related consumer products. Part of this work involves 

testing new medicines on animals to assess the safety of the substances before they 

are administered to humans, as required by law in just about every country in the 

world. 

GlaxoSmithKline strongly supports and encourages passage of H.R. 4239 and its 

Senate counterpart to give law enforcement personnel the tools necessary to prosecute illegal animal rights activity. 

Although GSK is a global research based pharmaceutical company, we are targeted by animal rights extremists because of our business relationship with Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). This tactic is referred to as secondary targeting because it attacks a company’s customers rather than the company itself. In this case, 

18

GSK is targeted because it has a business relationship with HLS. Even more outrageous is ‘tertiary targeting’ which seeks to punish businesses and individuals 

merely because they have some remote relationship with GSK or a GSK employee. 

Animal rights extremists have found these tactics to be effective because they exploit current law’s inadequacy of addressing and protecting non-primary targets. HR 

4239 will address this secondary and tertiary targeting and close the existing loophole that has been exploited in order to terrorize completely innocent people and legitimate businesses. 

In the past 21 months in the US, GSK has experienced approximately 150 AR 

incidents directed at our employees, Board members, and others with only a tenuous 

connection to GSK. Unfortunately this list includes several non-profit organizations 

such as the Eisenhower Fellowship, universities, and private high schools. 

Since January 2005, GSK employees and our friends and family have been subjected to approximately 75 intimidating and threatening home demonstrations and 

10 cases of criminal damage to property in the United States. These incidents have 

traumatized employees and family members particularly children. In many cases, 

intimidating and defamatory flyers have been circulated to neighbors and classmates of children of GSK employees. 

In all of these incidents the common thread has been fear, intimidation and the 

threat of criminal action, and in many instances the ensuing criminal acts demonstrate that these were not idle threats or mere free speech. [Show exhibit at this 

point] The exhibit entitled ‘‘SHAC Terror Card’’ is a typical flyer used at these demonstrations. This card proclaims ‘‘Do you do business with Huntingdon Life 

Sciences? . . . If you do, there’s something you should know . . . Radical animal 

rights activists have been targeting executives and employees of companies that 

work with HLS’’ with criminal activity including: smashed windows; spray painted 

houses; glued locks; vandalized cars; stolen credit card numbers; ID theft; fraud; and 

continuous acts of harassment and intimidation against employees, their children 

and spouses. The card states that ‘‘the only way to end or prevent such attacks . . . 

is to stop doing business with Huntingdon.’’ It is no coincidence that many of the 

threatened criminal acts in this flyer have been carried out against our employees 

and associates. 

Some of the acts committed by those representing animal rights groups include:

• Theft of mail from a GSK employee, which revealed divorce proceedings and 

an alcohol treatment program recently completed by his spouse. Animal 

Rights Extremists left a bottle of beer at her front door and a note stating 

‘‘Have a drink Bitch’’. The same day AREs visited the school of her son placing slanderous flyers throughout the campus depicting one parent as an animal killer and the other an alcoholic. Similar defamatory statements were emailed to the school’s staff. [Redacted version of Flyer to be show during this 

part] On a previous visit to the spouse’s residence an anonymous message 

was left on her answering machine stating ‘‘We have been watching you and 

we know you are alone.’’

• A GSK senior executive had his home attacked twice in the middle of the 

night resulting in spray painting of the exterior of the house with the words 

‘‘Puppy Killer Dave’’ and a rock thrown through a large front window. He has 

also been subjected to anonymous late night threatening calls and numerous 

daytime intimidating demonstrations, where defamatory flyers and the SHAC 

‘‘terror card’’ were distributed to neighbors.

• During a Hugs for Puppies (a NJ/PA based animal extremist group) protest 

at GSK’s Philadelphia parking facility, a female GSK employee was threatened by a Hugs for Puppies protestor, when he yelled at her, ‘‘I have your 

license plate, we will track you down and kill your family.’’

• A GSK physician was contacted in the middle of the night by someone posing 

as an employee of the Baltimore City Morgue, requesting her to come to the 

morgue to identify a relative who had died. Upon arrival at the morgue she 

learned that the call was a hoax, and was then fearful that someone was 

lying in wait for her upon returning to her home in the middle of the night.

• Another GSK employee was subjected to several ARE demonstrations at his 

home, including leafleting the neighborhood with the SHAC Terror Card. The 

employee’s eight year son was traumatized by the incident, waking up in the 

middle of the night staring out the window for fear that the terrorists would 

return.

Obviously GSK is very concerned about the targeting of its employees and we’ve 

noticed an upsetting trend in the frequency and increasing severity of these acts. 

While we will continue to protect our employees in an appropriate manner, it is 

19

worth mentioning that other individuals have been targeted merely because of their 

association with GlaxoSmithKline. For instance:

• The President of a New York University had his house spray painted because 

he invited someone to speak at the mid-year commencement address who 

happened to sit on the same board of another organization with a GSK employee.

• An employee of the Eisenhower Fellowship had acid or paint stripper thrown 

onto two vehicles parked at her residence just beneath an open window near 

where her young son lay sleeping. The employee at the time was expecting 

her second child. Eisenhower is a non-profit organization who happens to 

have a GSK executive on their Board.

• Eisenhower Fellowship also had the locks of their building glued causing the 

expense of replacing the damaged locks.

• A Long Beach Island, NJ, retiree had his home and car spray painted simply 

because he had a name similar to a GSK executive. He has no affiliation with 

GSK or HLS. Animal Rights Extremists have been arrested for this crime and 

are awaiting trial.

• A Philadelphia area executive serving on a Board of Directors with a GSK 

Senior executive was subjected to character assassination solely because of 

the GSK executive presence on the same board. After having his mail stolen 

from his residential mailbox, country club members were informed he was a 

pedophile by a forged letter purportedly from a fellow club member. An invitation to an anniversary dinner was also stolen, resulting in an obscenity 

laden message to the hostess threatening intimidation if the individual wasn’t 

uninvited from the private dinner party.

• A senior executive of a Fortune Five Hundred specialty chemical company 

had his home spray painted and his car doused with acid or paint stripper, 

again solely because a GSK executive serves on their Board.

GSK has received excellent support from law enforcement, and is appreciative of 

the efforts by agencies such as the FBI, Philadelphia Police Department, and other 

State and Local law enforcement agencies. Despite this support, GSK continues to 

be targeted with intimidation and criminal acts, and to date none of the acts against 

GSK has resulted in a criminal conviction, despite the tireless efforts of law enforcement. We believe this is because the existing laws are inadequate to provide law 

enforcement and prosecutors with the tools necessary to bring these terrorists to 

justice. GSK believes House Bill 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, will 

provide law enforcement with those tools, and we urge Congress to pass this legislation. 

It is worth mentioning here that the situation today in the USA is very similar 

to what we experienced in the UK five years ago. I can tell you that in the first 

six months of 2001, GSK employees living and working in and around London experienced over 3,000 separate terrorist actions by animal extremists. I am aware that 

leading lights in the US animal extremism movement spent up to a year or more 

in the UK during 2002/3 where they were seen to be associating with the leading 

lights in the UK extremist groups. At that time, there was little or no support in 

the UK from the police who claimed that, as there was no resolve by government, 

they could not apply the appropriate resources to deal effectively with the situation. 

Because of this, the extremists became more emboldened and have placed firebombs 

at the homes of our employees while their children were asleep in the house, destroyed property, terrorized children and caused incredible stress on individuals and 

their families. A year ago, the UK government introduced more effective legislation 

and provided the police with the necessary resources. We are now seeing the benefits of these measures. Had it not been for the introduction of effective legislation, 

and its application by the police, the situation in the UK would have worsened and 

my advice to the Chairman and members today, based on personal experience, is 

that if the US doesn’t act now, they will face the same level of escalation and similar acts of violence, intimidation and the endangerment of lives of American citizens. The patterns of offending and extremist behavior are the same. 

I would like to finish by saying that those involved in scientific research are regular people, trying to earn a living, raise a family and provide a decent future for 

their children. They are committed to the discovery of new medicines to help cure 

serious illness and disease yet it is they and their families and associates who are 

left to suffer at the hands of violent extremists. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Potter. 

20

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM POTTER, JOURNALIST 

Mr. POTTER. Good morning, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member 

Scott, and Members of the Committee. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Potter, if you would suspend a minute, I won’t 

penalize you. I want to recognize the distinguished gentleman from 

Florida Mr. Feeney, and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio 

Mr. Chabot, who have joined us. 

And you may continue, Mr. Potter. 

Mr. POTTER. Thank you, sir. 

Good morning, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott and 

Members of the Committee. I am honored to be invited to discuss 

civil liberties concerns raised by the Animal Enterprise Terrorism 

Act. As should be clear from the outset, though, I’m not a lawyer, 

I’m not a first amendment scholar, and I am not a spokesperson 

for the animal rights movement or underground groups. I’m here 

because of my freelance reporting. 

I’ve written for the Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning News, 

Legal Affairs and other publications. And since 2000, I’ve closely 

followed the animal rights and the environmental movements, and 

the corporate-led backlash against them. I’ve documented an increasingly disturbing trend of terrorist rhetoric, sweeping legislation, grand jury witch hunts, blacklists, and FBI harassment reminiscent of tactics used against Americans during the Red Scare. 

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is a continuation of that 

trend. The bill is ostensibly a response to illegal actions in the 

name of animal rights. 

Department of Justice officials have told this Congress that their 

hands are tied in prosecuting these crimes, but their press statements tying the arrests of so-called ecoterrorists don’t match this 

rhetoric. Just this weekend, four individuals were indicted for the 

1998 fire at a Vail ski resort. The Government recently rounded up 

over a dozen environmental activists in the Northwest for alleged 

property crimes, and six animal activists were convicted in March 

of animal enterprise terrorism and other charges. 

If this Committee wants surveillance, round-ups and convictions 

of animal activists, that’s already underway. Law enforcement has 

not proven the need for heavier-handed tactics. Property crimes are 

already punishable as so-called animal enterprise terrorism. This 

bill, though, further expands that sweeping category to include protests, boycotts, undercover investigations, whistleblowing and nonviolent civil disobedience. The bill criminalizes any activity against 

an animal enterprise or any company tangential to an animal enterprise that causes economic damage defined as including the loss 

of profits. That’s not terrorism, that’s effective activism. 

Businesses exist to make a profit, and if activists want change, 

they have no choice but to tug at pursestrings. That principle guided the grape boycotts of the United Farm Workers, the lunch 

counter civil disobedience of civil rights activists and the divestment campaigns of antiapartheid groups. Those tactics all hurt 

profits, and those tactics, if directed at an animal enterprise, would 

all be considered terrorism under this legislation. 

Exceptions were made in the bill for losses from public reaction 

to information about an enterprise, but that’s not an adequate safeguard. Corporations could argue that undercover investigators and 

21

whistleblowers hurt profits beyond public reaction. Those activists 

may cause a financial loss because they received a salary or 

prompted extensive employee background checks or prompted additional security measures. 

Perhaps the greatest danger of this legislation, though, is that it 

will impact all animal activists, even those that never have to enter 

a courtroom. The reckless use of the word ‘‘ecoterrorism’’ by corporations and the Government has already had a chilling effect, 

and this legislation will compound it. Through my reporting I’ve already heard the widespread fears of activists that they may soon 

be labled terrorists, even for legal activity. They point to media 

smear campaigns by industry groups like the Center for Consumer 

Freedom, and many were stunned by full-page anonymous adds in 

both The New York Times and The Washington Post with a figure 

in a black mask labeling animal rights activists as terrorists. 

They are also keenly aware that the Department of Homeland 

Security does not list right-wing terrorists on the list of national 

security threats, as in the Congressional Quarterly article I 

brought today, but puts animal activists at the top of that list. 

This legislation will add to this climate of fear and distrust, and 

it will force Americans to ask themselves, is it worth it? Is standing 

up for my beliefs really worth the risk of being labeled a terrorist? 

That is not a choice that anyone should have to make. 

Other activists may soon be asking themselves the same questions though. Prolife groups have already raised concerns that this 

bill could become the model for liberals in a changed Congress to 

target antiabortion acts as terrorists. 

Public fears of terrorism since the tragedy of September 11th 

should not be exploited to push a political agenda. I urge you to 

reject this bill and ensure that limited antiterrorism resources are 

used to protect national security and human life, not profits. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Potter follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILL POTTER

Good morning Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the committee. I am honored to be invited to discuss civil liberties concerns raised by H.R. 

4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. 

I should be clear from the outset, though. I am not a lawyer. I’m not a First 

Amendment scholar. And I’m not a spokesperson for the animal rights movement, 

or underground groups. 

I’m here because of my freelance reporting. I have written for publications including The Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning News, and Legal Affairs. And since 

2000, I have closely followed the animal rights and environmental movements, and 

the corporate-led backlash against them. I’ve documented an increasingly disturbing 

trend of ‘‘terrorist’’ rhetoric, sweeping legislation, grand jury witch hunts, blacklists, 

and FBI harassment reminiscent of tactics used against Americans during the Red 

Scare. 

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is a continuation of that trend. 

The bill is ostensibly a response to illegal actions committed by underground activists in the name of animal rights. Business groups have lobbied for this legislation for years. And Department of Justice officials have said they need help prosecuting these crimes. 

At the same time, they have been patting themselves on the back for arresting 

so-called ‘‘eco-terrorists.’’ Just this weekend, four individuals were indicted for the 

1998 fire at a Vail ski resort. Earlier this year, the government rounded up over 

a dozen environmental activists in the Northwest for property crimes. And on top 

22

of that, six animal activists were convicted in March of ‘‘animal enterprise terrorism’’ and other charges. 

If committee members want law enforcement to focus resources on the animal 

rights and environmental movements, that’s already being done. The government 

has been able to make arrests and convictions using existing laws. 

This legislation will not help solve crimes. It will, however, risk painting legal activity and non-violent civil disobedience with the same broad brush as illegal activists. It takes the administration’s ‘‘you’re either with us or against us’’ mentality of 

the War on Terrorism and applies it to activists. 

This legislation criminalizes any activity against an animal enterprise, or any 

company connected to an animal enterprise, that causes ‘‘economic damage.’’ That 

includes the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of 

repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, and ‘‘the loss of profits.’’ That clause, ‘‘loss of profits,’’ would sweep in not only property crimes, but legal 

activity like protests, boycotts, investigations, media campaigning, and whistleblowing. It would also include campaigns of non-violent civil disobedience, like 

blocking entrances to a laboratory where controversial animal testing is taking 

place. 

Those aren’t acts of terrorism. They are effective activism. Businesses exist to 

make money, and if activists want to change a business practice, they must make 

that practice unprofitable. That principle guided the grape boycotts of the United 

Farm Workers, the lunch-counter civil disobedience of civil rights activists, and the 

divestment campaigns of anti-apartheid groups. 

Those tactics all hurt profits. And those tactics, if directed at an animal enterprise, would all be considered ‘‘terrorism’’ under this bill. In fact, those three examples would probably receive stiffer penalties, because they caused ‘‘significant’’ or ‘‘major’’ economic damage or disruption. In other words, the more successful that activists are, the greater terrorist threat they become under this bill. 

It is my understanding at the time of drafting this testimony that proposed 

changes might exclude ‘‘expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other 

peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment.’’ It is a positive, yet incremental, first step to include peaceful picketing. However, 

the bill does not specifically exclude other activity like boycotts, whistleblowing, undercover investigation, and non-violent civil disobedience. 

Furthermore, the inclusion of ‘‘trespassing’’ in damaging and disruptive activity 

puts undercover investigators and whistleblowers further at risk. Undercover video 

and photography undoubtedly impact profits. They have also led to prosecutions, 

animal welfare reforms, and a more informed democratic process on these issues. 

Exceptions are made in the bill for disruption or damage ‘‘that results from lawful 

public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an 

animal enterprise.’’ But this is no safeguard. For instance, undercover investigators 

and whistleblowers may cause financial loss for a company beyond the losses related 

to third party reactions. Companies may argue that salaries for undercover investigators, increased internal security, and extensive employee background checks are 

added costs of doing business because of activists. In short, this exemption seems 

to pose more questions than it answers. 

You probably have noted that I have not focused on the clauses of this legislation 

dealing with significant bodily injury or death caused by activists. Those provisions 

are each problematic, but they are also, in some ways, non-issues. It’s unlikely that 

even illegal, underground activists like the Animal Liberation Front would be impacted. Their actions, such as releasing mink from fur farms, spray-painting buildings, and arson, have not claimed a single human life. 

This legislation will impact all animal activists, even if they never enter the courtroom. It will add to the chilling effect that already exists because of ‘‘eco-terrorism’’

rhetoric by corporations, lawmakers and law enforcement. Through my interviews 

with grassroots animal rights activists, national organizations, and their attorneys, 

I have heard widespread fears that the word ‘‘terrorist’’ could one day be turned 

against them, even though they use legal tactics. 

They point to full-page anonymous ads in both The New York Times and The 

Washington Post this month, labeling animal rights activists ‘‘terrorists.’’ The ads 

promote a website, www.nysehostage.com, that says ‘‘anti-business activists’’ like the 

Teamsters, Communication Workers of America and Greenpeace could be the next 

‘‘eco-terrorists.’’ Media campaigns by the Center for Consumer Freedom and other 

industry groups have used similar rhetoric to smear legal activist groups. 

Activists also feel that the government is disproportionately focusing resources 

and attention on the animal rights and environmental movements. They cite reporting by Congressional Quarterly that showed the Department of Homeland Security 

does not list right-wing terrorists on a list of national security threats. 

23

Those groups have been responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic 

Park bombing in Atlanta, violence against doctors, and admittedly creating weapons 

of mass destruction, but animal rights activists still top the domestic terrorist list. 

This legislation will add to this fear and distrust, and will force Americans to decide if speaking up for animals is worth the risk of being labeled a ‘‘terrorist,’’ either 

in the media or the courtroom. That’s not a choice anyone should have to make. 

Animal rights activists have been among the first victims of this terrorist scaremongering, but if it continues they will not be the last. Changes in the Supreme 

Court seem to have revitalized the anti-abortion movement, which, unlike the animal rights movement, has a documented history of bloodshed. But there’s also a potential for backlash if upcoming elections alter the balance of power in Washington. 

Some anti-abortion organizations, like the Thomas More Society, have already 

raised concerns that this legislation could become a model for labeling other activists as terrorists. 

All Americans should be concerned about this trend, regardless of how they feel 

about animal rights. The word terrorism should not be batted around against the 

enemy of the hour, to push a partisan political agenda. Public fears of terrorism 

since the tragedy of September 11th should not be exploited for political points. I 

urge you to reject this legislation in its entirety, and ensure that limited anti-terrorism resources are not spent targeting non-violent activism. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Potter, and thanks to each of you 

panelists. 

Now we impose the 5-minute rule against ourselves as well, 

folks, and I suspect we’ll probably have a second round because 

this is a very significantly important issue. 

Dr. Basso, I think you correctly stated that most—well, strike 

that—many—I remember you said most, but I’m sure many activists do so properly and lawfully. Unfortunately, they’re tainted with 

the same brush with which those who don’t do it lawfully. That’s 

the unfortunate feature here. And it is my belief—now, I’m not suggesting these people are terrorists, they may be, but terrorists generally are cowards, or they conceal their face with black masks. 

They strike, as you pointed out, Doctor, at night, by dark of night. 

It bothers me. 

Now, I’m not interested in trampling on anybody’s first amendment rights. As I mentioned earlier, and the Ranking Member 

mentioned in his statement, we have a manager’s amendment, but 

I really don’t know that that was important because I think the 

bill, on its face, indicates first amendment protection. 

But, Doctor, if you will, tell us in some detail how critical animals are in your research and its potential benefit for mankind—

briefly if you can, because I’ll need to get around to these other 

guys. 

Dr. BASSO. The use of animals in research is critical. Virtually 

every major advance in the last century has depended upon the use 

of animals. In my research in particular, we coordinate very closely 

with clinicians, neurosurgeons and neurologists, and we try to ask 

as many questions as possible of the human brain, but we have to 

remember also those patients with whom we work are undergoing 

surgical procedures, and so they’re there principally to be treated 

for their disease. What we then need to do is go back into the laboratory and replicate either the disease or the treatment in order 

to understand how it’s working and how to make it better for the 

next time. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. 

Mr. McIntosh, some might indicate that the recent convictions of 

the six SHAC extremists to which you alluded in New Jersey might 

24

well suggest that no additional legislation such as this before us is 

necessary. What say you to that? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We do not agree that the recent SHAC convictions indicate that 

no additional legislation is necessary. As I mentioned, we were 

forced to use the stalking statute there because, as has been indicated explicitly on a number of Websites, animal rights extremists 

explicitly attempt to tailor their tactics to avoid Federal jurisdiction, Federal investigation and prosecutorial jurisdiction. And so 

we believe that following successful prosecutions under the stalking 

statute, we would see another permutation to move to a situation 

where those extremists are trying to avoid the stalking statute perhaps by targeting not individuals, but entities. 

Moreover, we think that clarity in the law on how broadly section 

43 of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act applies is an independent good thing because it gives us a sense of what the actual 

crimes these extremists may be committing are, and thus doesn’t 

force prosecutors to hunt through title 18 of the Code to find a 

crime they may have committed while attempting to avoid section 

43. And second, it gives them a sense for what the Federal crimes 

actually are, what the scope of the Federal crimes are. And the 

scope of section 43 right now is not clear. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. McIntosh. 

Let me try to beat the red light by putting a question to Mr. Potter. 

Mr. Potter, in your testimony you expressed concern that nonviolent civil disobedience would be criminalized under this bill. Let 

me ask you this, sir: Do you believe that spray painting abusive 

graffiti on people’s homes and vandalizing homes and businesses or 

pouring acid on cars, do you think that is nonviolent? 

Mr. POTTER. I think those are absolutely crimes, and they’re absolutely not nonviolent civil disobedience. 

Mr. COBLE. So you say that would be violent civil disobedience. 

Mr. POTTER. I think that because I’m not an attorney——

Mr. COBLE. And I’m not trying to entrap you. 

Mr. POTTER. I think they’re absolutely crimes——

Mr. COBLE. Okay. I didn’t understand you clearly. 

My red light appears, and I’m just pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McIntosh, you’ve indicated that you prosecute some and 

don’t prosecute others, and make good judgments along those lines. 

One of the concerns I have is what you prosecute and don’t prosecute ought not be your discretion, but ought to be how the law is 

written. Let me ask a couple of questions along those lines. 

What is the law for everybody else in other kinds of crimes, other 

kinds of protests in terms of business losses? How does the treatment in this circumstance differ from other kinds of protests? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Let me make an initial point here, which is that 

the loss of profits provision is not new to this bill, it’s currently—

it’s part of the current law; so we are not proposing to change that 

provision. Section 43(d)(3) of the current law includes loss of profits 

in the current law. 

25

It is my understanding that in this case we’re seeing a specific 

targeting—we’re seeing a set of tactics used in the animal enterprise terrorism or animal enterprise extremism front, and in the 

ecoextremism front more broadly, that is explicitly aimed at using 

violence against—violence and threats of violence against people to 

cause them to disassociate themselves, perhaps by imposing a loss 

of profits on—I’m sorry, to disassociate themselves with the animal 

enterprise. So this is a tactic we’re seeing specifically in this area 

that we’re not seeing in many other places. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if it were to occur in another situation or another cause, why should that, too, not be illegal? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Congressman, I think that we would suggest that 

if some other cause adopted a similar set of tactics in an attempt 

to commit this sort of violence extortion, that similarly it ought to 

be illegal. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you not concerned that when you make these 

things cause-specific, you get into freedom of speech content? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Sir, we are not interested in what the cause is. 

If there are—if this is being used against other causes, we would 

be happy to see the ability to prosecute it as well. We are interested only in the tactics involved. 

Congress has seen fit to pass an animal enterprise terrorism 

statute, and we are happy to prosecute it as it exists. And if there 

are proposals to give us that authority, a similar authority for 

other causes, we would be happy to prosecute those as well, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. The bill provides for the same treatment for conspiracy attempts as the completed offense. Is there precedence for 

that? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. I believe there is, sir. In a number of instances 

they are treated the same. And I would be happy to, after the hearing today, get back to you with a list of similar places where—of 

places where they’re treated similarly. We believe it is justified to 

do so because when two or more people conspire, they often can 

commit greater damage than an individual person. And moreover, 

they often lead themselves through sort of egging one another on 

to complete a conspiracy that an individual would not feel compelled to complete. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, that’s—if you have the conspiracy or the attempt treated the same way as a completed offense, there’s no incentive to discontinue. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Well, the attempt actually involves an attempt to 

succeed, so discontinuance is not a subject; that’s a failed attempt 

to complete. 

Conspiracy, on the other hand, is a situation where we think 

that often a conspiracy to commit the substantive offense, because 

of the greater damage it threatens, can be worse than an individual 

attempting to commit the offense on his or her own. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The distinguished gentleman from Florida Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Basso, first, do you believe that you were targeted because 

of the research you were doing to try to understand the causes and 

26

treatment of Parkinson’s disease, and was that research funded by 

the National Institutes of Health, in part? 

Dr. BASSO. Excuse me. I’m not sure why I was targeted, frankly. 

And yes, the research is funded by the National Institutes of 

Health and also the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Potter, I appreciate that you don’t have a legal background. 

In your testimony you oppose the bill because you say that it—and 

I quote, ‘‘it criminalizes any activity,’’ that causes economic damages. But the truth of the matter is the bill is very specific; it does 

not criminalize any activity, it criminalizes activity that either intentionally damages, disrupts or causes the loss of any property. So 

destruction or damaging property, or, alternatively, intentionally 

places in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to 

a person, that’s the traditional legal definition so that you understand it, that’s called an assault. A battery is actually attacking 

somebody physically; an assault is the imminent threat to do so 

under traditional tort understanding. These are already illegal activities. 

The point is that people are behaving illegally to make political 

purposes. In my view, you’re just flat out wrong. They ought to be 

responsible for the natural and consequential damages of their disruptive behavior. There are first amendment protections that all of 

us believe are very important to this country, but I would advise 

you not to be making statements that any activity is criminalized 

because it’s just flat out false. And maybe next time you’ll want to 

consult—go ahead, you can answer. 

Mr. POTTER. Well, Congressman, with all due respect, I’d like to 

point out that the definition given of economic damage means the 

replacement cost of lost or damaged property or records, the cost 

of repeating an interrupted—— Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Potter, we’ll have to get you a logic course that 

you can understand one step to the next—— Mr. POTTER. If I can just finish. The easier is the loss of profits, 

and I think that’s what would give any——

Mr. FEENEY. Reclaiming my time. I point out that the gentleman 

simply doesn’t understand. You’re not responsible for any of the 

definition you just talked about unless you have intentionally damaged or destroyed property or threatened somebody’s life or bodily 

injury. So all of what you’re referring to is not of concern if you behave legally. I want to assure you and advise you to go talk to an 

attorney before you come and testify before the United States Congress about what bills do when, in fact, they do not do. 

If you commit a crime, then you may be responsible for some of 

those damages, and then the definition of what you’re responsible 

for is important. But as long as you have not committed a crime, 

I want to assure you there’s nothing in this bill that would make 

you a target of obligation for those economic damages. 

Mr. McIntosh, I do believe that the gentleman from Virginia 

raises an important point, because whether or not you’re trying to 

protect animals, or whether or not you’re trying to protect—whatever issue you have, ultimately the goal is to protect a monkey or 

an unborn life or whatever issue you may have, and it is a concern 

that, as opposed to attacking the act when the act is the spray 

27

paint or the act is the imminent threat, I mean, it is a concern of 

mine that we are identifying specific causes, as worthwhile as they 

may be, for specific crimes. And you indicated that you’re more concerned about the act than the goal as well. Is it fair to say, does 

the Justice Department itself take a position on that? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. That is correct, Congressman. We are more—we 

are apolitical in this. We have no interest in the cause in question, 

we have only the interest of ensuring that the tactics used to advance that cause are lawful. It is our intention to prosecute unlawful acts without regard to the cause of—— Mr. FEENEY. One concern that I have in your testimony, you suggest that—and of course you haven’t said this is criminalized by 

the act—but on page 3 of your testimony you said that one of the 

economic activities that causes—well, one of the activities that political groups use is Internet posting of home telephone numbers of 

law-abiding employees. I’m not aware of any Federal or State statutes that they may violate. If I post on the Internet my neighbor’s 

address or telephone, is that a Federal crime? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Sir, that is not a Federal crime. The Federal 

crime is if you were to post that information in connection with a 

threat of violence that would put a reasonable person in fear for 

harm or death to himself or someone else——

Mr. FEENEY. So it’s attached to the assault definition, genuine 

imminent concern about an attack. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. That’s right. This is what the courts call a true 

threat, where you post a person’s name along with that—— Mr. FEENEY. Well, maybe in future testimony you will make it 

clear that you’re not concerned about just mere posting of addresses and telephone numbers, it’s combined with the other threat aspects that concern you. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Congressman, to the extent I didn’t make that 

clear, I apologize. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Florida. 

The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Basso, your experience clearly is unfortunate and unacceptable. I think we all concur that it should not be tolerated. But I 

am going to direct my comments to the Deputy Attorney General. 

You know, as I see and read the various cases that are reflected 

in the memorandum, I don’t see a single case that would not fall 

within the purview of multiple—multiple State statutes, as well as 

a variety of Federal existing statutes, not necessarily just simply 

focused on the so-called Animal Terrorist Enterprise Act. 

You know, the former Attorney General under President Reagan, 

Ed Meese, expressed his concern about the federalization of crime 

in this country, and, to be candid with you, I think that this could 

very well serve as an example. You know, you had to go to the— I guess the stalking statute to effect the indictments of those who 

were responsible—purportedly, allegedly—for the burning of a 

building out in Vail, Colorado; but I’m not convinced that there are 

not sufficient tools already to deal with the cases that are illustrated in the memorandum, as well as related by Mr. Trundley and 

Dr. Basso. I mean, as the gentleman indicated an assault, what 

about civil rights actions, both at the State and the Federal level? 

28

You know, if there’s a conspiracy here, if there’s an organized enterprise, why not invoke RICO? Respond if you would. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Sir, I would be happy to do so. Let me first state 

that the Vail indictments actually involve an arson indictment. So 

they are not under section 43. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. But that’s my point. You’re making my case for 

me. And I’m sure under a State statute arson carries a significant 

sanction. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Let me try and address this question with regard 

to the way these cases are investigated and prosecuted. In many 

cases these are not just local actions, we’re talking about nationwide, and indeed in SHAC’s case, an international conspiracy 

that——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand that because I just perused the 

memorandum. But in a RICO investigation, for example, why not 

utilize the RICO statute? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. We have a——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean, you have predicate crimes. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. In many cases SHAC has, and other animal extremists have tailored their crimes specifically, their campaign specifically to avoid committing predicate acts so that we can use 

RICO. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in the Schindler case 

that a Hobbs Act predicate, which was a traditional hook for prosecuting these sorts of things, the traditional RICO predicate, was 

not available unless the defendant had gained for himself something of value. So if——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, you know, and I don’t have much 

time, but do you work with local and State authorities during the 

course of the investigation of these crimes? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. We absolutely do, sir. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would dare say that, in many cases, that the 

sanctions that would be available under State statutes would be far 

more severe than the possible sanction under the Federal statute. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. As a matter of law——

Mr. DELAHUNT. We’re talking threats, we’re talking assault, 

we’re talking violation of civil rights. You know and I know that 

for each and every single conviction there’s the possibility of a parole after sentence. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. In many cases the—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Consecutive sentences. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. We are seeing explicit attempts to commit low 

level harassment that in the end convinces people, despite the fact 

that these are low level actions of State crimes, that they are in 

a reasonable fear of death. And these are often crimes that have 

very low penalties individually when you look across the broad——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I will tell you, I can’t—that’s difficult for me. 

And I’m using Dr. Basso’s case. An aggressive prosecutor in an investigation that would establish the violation of multiple State 

statutes, and given the parameters that you describe in terms of 

what this organization is about, would warrant, presumably, after 

conviction parole after sentences with considerable incarcerations. 

Now maybe that hasn’t happened, but that’s the problem of, you 

know, not looking—that’s the problem in terms of recommendation 

to a court post jury verdict. 

29

Mr. MCINTOSH. In many cases the incident against Dr. Basso 

cannot be connected by a local law enforcement agency to the action 2,000 miles away against someone else; whereas with a Federal offense we can connect those things and see them as a crime 

in both places committed by the same person. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the Chair would indulge me for an additional 

minute. 

Mr. COBLE. Just for 1 minute. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. My point is on sentencing in State courts, the 

availability of bringing additional information before the court for 

sentencing purposes would clearly be allowed. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. We are not seeing success with that in State and 

local law enforcement. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I’m surprised. Have you consulted with the 

National District Attorneys Association on these cases? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. I don’t know that we have, but I would assume 

that we have and I am happy to get back to you with that information. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, my reluctance to embrace this is 

based upon a continuing federalization of State crimes. I understand there’s a current statute on the books now, and it’s not in 

any way an endorsement of the behavior that has victimized Dr. 

Basso and presumably others, but at some point in time we have 

to, you know, either respect the concept of federalism where these 

kind of crimes traditionally in our jurisprudence fall within the 

purview of the States. And if the States are not enforcing them, 

then it’s a question of education, and insisting that State prosecutors work with Federal authorities in those cases where it’s clear 

that this is an organized effort directed against Dr. Basso. And I 

just can’t imagine, I can’t imagine a State prosecutor not seeking 

the kind of penalties that would exceed whatever exists under Federal statutes. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Potter, if I could begin with the two of 

you. How do members of the groups that we have been discussing 

here this morning communicate with each other in order to organize and plan their targeting campaigns? And perhaps, Mr. 

McIntosh, we could begin with you. 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Congressman, we see the use primarily of the 

Internet to organize these campaigns. These tend to be often loosely affiliated groups that post the names and other biographical 

data of individuals online. And sometimes these are individuals associated with the actual enterprise, sometimes they’re people associated with groups affiliated with the enterprise. I know that in 

Mr. Trundley’s written testimony he also talks about targeting 

groups that are associated with, are entities associated with a 

group. 

So these are a broad set of biographical data that are posted, 

often named as targets, and then they will list a set of tactics that 

ought to be taken against these people. And then when those tactics are taken by some anonymous entity, they are immediately, 

30

the next morning, up on the website saying some party did this, 

as we said they ought to. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Potter, anything you’d like to add to that, or could add to it? 

Mr. POTTER. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. 

I would like to add that when we were discussing first amendment speech, and even very controversial first amendment speech, 

like posting news of an illegal action, the Supreme Court has been 

extremely protective of first amendment activity, even in the most 

controversial—— Mr. CHABOT. Well, if you could just answer the question if you 

would. Do you know how they communicate with each other? 

Mr. POTTER. From my understanding, it is through telephone 

calls, e-mail, the same way everyone communicates. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Basso—and I’m pronouncing that correctly, aren’t I? Okay, 

thank you. Do you think that young scientists might seek other 

fields to pursue if intimidation and harassment continues on campus and at people’s homes? 

Dr. BASSO. Yes, I most absolutely do. I myself have considered 

leaving the field in light of my experiences. I have colleagues across 

the country who have experienced what I have experienced, and 

worse, and they have told me that they would leave. I have colleagues in the United Kingdom who are looking to leave because 

they feel they can no longer do their research. 

So my concern in the long run is not only that young scientists 

won’t go into the field, but already established scientists might 

even leave and go where the environment is more conducive. 

Mr. CHABOT. Can you estimate how much of a financial 

burdenthat it’s been for the University of Wisconsin to add extra 

security to protect those involved with research? 

Dr. BASSO. Right. So I think that there has been somewhat of a 

small response to deal with some of these issues; and in large part 

I think because the seriousness of the problems is not fully recognized, and it may be in part because of a lack of a Federal legislation. So I think it’s been a little slow. 

But for me personally, my laboratory has been outfitted with 

alarm systems. And I know that we’re moving toward increasing 

access to animal barriers, animal facilities and so forth. Not to 

mention my own time that I spend engaged in these activities, preventing me from engaging in my research efforts. 

Mr. CHABOT. Could you comment on what State and local guidelines are in place for the humane treatment of the animals which 

you use in your scientific research and what decision-making body 

exists to determine when these guidelines have been breached? 

Dr. BASSO. Animal research, and in particular non-human primate research, is subject to very strict regulations and oversight. 

And I’m not an expert in this area, so I can’t give you all the details, but I know what my laboratory is required to do. 

At the University of Wisconsin we have five animal care and use 

committees, one of which is an all campus committee that overseas 

the activities across the entire university. The five campus committees are from each of the individual schools, the medical school, the 

agricultural school and so forth. Those committees are made up of 

31

a number of scientists, a lay person, veterinarians. And their obligation and charge is to read through protocols that are submitted 

by scientists in advance of the work being conducted, and they 

have to abide by the rules and regulations set by the USDA, the 

guidelines set by the Public Health Service Policy, and also our 

own local policy rules. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous 

consent to ask Mr. Trundley one additional question? 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Trundley, throughout your testimony you detailed numerous 

acts of intimidation and criminal activity. How much would you say 

that GSK spends each year on security and cleanup because of the 

animal rights extremists? 

Mr. TRUNDLEY. Well, sir, we do keep that information, but I 

would be prepared to give that to you personally outside of this 

meeting, because from our experience we would give that answer 

and then by the end of the day such information would be posted 

on an extremist website and they would be crowing with glory. We 

would just be giving them a platform on which they could grandstand. But I would be prepared to give that information personally 

later. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. That would be fine. Would you say it is significant? 

Mr. TRUNDLEY. It is significant. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. As I said previously, I think 

this issue warrants a second round, so let me editorialize a minute, 

the gospel according to Coble, Mr. Scott. 

Some folks have indicated that if this bill were enacted it would 

have a chilling effect upon the animal activist activities. I think an 

equally convincing argument could be that some of the illegal activities by some of the animal activists could have a more obvious 

chilling effect upon more legitimate animal research by law abiding 

citizens. I think that argument ought to be presented. 

Mr. Trundley, your body language told me that you wanted to insert your oars into the water as Mr. Delahunt was examining Mr. 

McIntosh. Did you, or did I misread you? 

Mr. TRUNDLEY. No, you didn’t misread me, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. But far away, because Bill’s not here to hear this, 

but——

Mr. TRUNDLEY. But the point is H.R. 4239 will be designed to assist the police, provide them with the tools and the necessary measures to investigate crimes against secondary and tertiary targets, 

whereas existing law is designed to protect the primary target. And 

despite the fact that we have this existing law at State and local 

level, there has still been no convictions for the crimes committed 

against GSK people, 150 in the last 21 months. 

We need this legislation to enable the police to become proactive 

in the way they conduct their investigations. These people are organized along terrorist cells, independently operating and using the 

Internet and e-mails in order to—clandestinely, clandestinely to 

make contact with each other. And then the result of their activiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:14 Sep 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\052306\27742.000 HJUD2 PsN: 27742
32

ties are clandestinely posted on websites that do not operate within 

the United States or the United Kingdom. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Dr. Basso, if Mr. Scott had received a telephone call like you did, 

I might say, well, that’s just some screwball having a little fun, 

they’re mere words, Bobby, don’t be upset about it. I could say that. 

But if that call came to me, if I was the beneficiary of such a call, 

Mr. Scott might say the same thing. But when you’re the beneficiary, it takes on an altogether different meaning. I think you can 

attest to that. And I don’t mean to be speaking for you, Doctor, but 

as evidenced by your testimony, you were placed in fear, were you 

not? I know I’m leading the witness with that question. 

Dr. BASSO. No, you’re absolutely correct. I was very fearful for 

my well-being, for the well-being of the laboratory personnel and 

for my animals, in fact. Yeah, this is very important. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I reiterate—I don’t mean to be speaking for 

every Member of this Subcommittee, but I know each one of them 

on both sides, and I don’t think any one of us is interested in trampling on first amendment rights, but this is a very, very difficult 

issue it seems to me. 

Mr. Trundley, let me revisit the SHAC terror card. Talk to me 

about that a minute in my time remaining. 

Mr. TRUNDLEY. Well, as you can see, sir, the terrorist, as we 

would describe them, is wearing a balaclava or a ski mask to disguise their faces. These are issues. The threats are quite explicit, 

stop doing business with Huntingdon Life Sciences, stop experimenting on animals. These are left with the scientists and members of their families. These are the people that are involved in 

bringing new medicines to the public, medicines such as flu vaccines, cervical cancer vaccines, breast cancer treatments. Without 

those people working on those products, you won’t get them there. 

And they are terrified, they are traumatized, they are debilitated 

when something like that is handed to them personally or sent to 

them through the mail post, or during what is on the surface a 

peaceful demonstration their neighbors are contacted in person and 

handed a terror card such as this, or they’re told your neighbor, 

who works for Glaxo Smith Kline, is a pedophile, is a puppy killer, 

is a murderer. It’s designed to create terror and fear widespread, 

not just on the individual concerned, but on his colleagues when he 

goes to the office the following day, or with his colleagues and 

wider throughout the research and medical communities. 

If it was informed, reasoned, peaceful debate, we would welcome 

that. We like to hear the views of others and we like to give our 

views as well, but in an articulate, controlled and informed manner. 

Our point is, why create fear and terror amongst a group of scientists or those involved in medical research, not only scientists, 

but sales representatives, admin assistants and executives of the 

company, why create that environment of fear of posting it to the 

Internet? 

Mr. COBLE. Well, as you said, Mr. Trundley, designed to create 

fear; actually not only designed to create fear but delivering fear. 

Mr. TRUNDLEY. It achieves their objective. 

Mr. COBLE. In spades. I see the red light. 

33

The distinguished gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McIntosh, you have a copy of the bill and the—what’s called 

the discussion draft before you? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. I do, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Mr. Potter has indicated that the bill may proscribe what are legitimate protests. In fact, if you have a successful 

protest—on page 2, line 9, you define the offense of whoever travels 

Interstate 1 for the purpose of disrupting and intentionally, on line 

15, disrupts, that constitutes the crime which would really be the 

result of—a bona fide result of a successful protest. 

The discussion draft, however, makes a change in that, and the 

offense is defined as someone who travels for the purpose of damaging or disrupting, and in connection with such purpose, A, intentionally damages or causes the loss of property, or intentionally 

places a person in reasonable fear. Now intentionally damaging or 

causing the loss of property is already a crime, damaging somebody 

else’s property. Placing someone—intentionally placing somebody 

in fear is already a crime, that’s assault. Does that change—should 

that change fix the problem that Mr. Potter has articulated? 

Mr. MCINTOSH. Congressman, as I stated initially, we do not believe that the draft of 4239, the introduced bill, is unconstitutional. 

However, to the extent that there are concerns that it would show 

first amendment activity, I think it’s clear that the discussion draft 

that I’ve been shown would go a long way toward remedying those 

concerns. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Potter, have you seen the discussion draft? 

Mr. POTTER. Yes, I have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does that address the concerns that you have articulated? 

Mr. POTTER. No, it does not, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Why doesn’t it? 

Mr. POTTER. The main changes I saw in the discussion draft 

were, at the end, the specific exclusion of activity like picketing or 

lawful demonstrations. I’d like to point out that we would hope 

that would already be included under our conception of protected 

activities. So to point it out almost implies and acknowledges the 

overly broad and vague language of this legislation and the true 

danger it poses to first amendment activity. 

And furthermore, that language still does not prohibit the use of 

this animal enterprise terrorism clause against things like civil disobedience, and perhaps even whistleblowing and undercover investigations. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, in connection with that, you would have to intentionally damage or cause a loss of property, or intentionally 

place someone in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. 

Mr. POTTER. My concern is that language, ‘‘the loss of property,’’

is extremely broad and vague. I know the Congressman mentioned 

that there are specific definitions at play here, but I think when 

an average person reads the loss of property, any activist will see 

that and say, that’s what I do, you know, I’m trying to impact a 

loss of profit to influence their business decisions. 

Mr. SCOTT. You’re using property to include profits? 

34

Mr. POTTER. Excuse me, I misspoke. I’m talking about profits. 

But this says intentionally damages or causes loss of property in 

the discussion draft, page 2, starting on line 1. 

Mr. POTTER. And I’m also operating—I’m looking at page 5, 3a, 

when we’re defining economic damage and disruption with the loss 

of profits as specifically laid out. That was part of the crux of my 

concern of incorporating not only first amendment activity, but also 

civil disobedience through that definition. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. The economic damage comes in the penalty 

part. If you have caused—if you have violated the law and caused 

a loss or damage to property, then you are guilty; the penalty 

comes in for the economic damage. Maybe we need to review the 

cross references, but the fact that you have to be exposed under the 

law, you have to actually damage or cause the loss of property, 

which is a crime already. 

Mr. POTTER. I’m sure decisions will be made about the interrelation of these definitions in those actual clauses. 

In addition to that, my overriding concern is that, regardless of 

that minutia, using the word ‘‘terrorism’’ to go after things that are 

already crimes, such as property crimes, and also potentially, as 

I’ve raised, first amendment activity, will have an overwhelming, 

chilling effect and add to the chilling effect that’s already going on 

by using the words ecoterrorism, animal enterprise terrorism in a 

post-9/11 climate. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, can I ask one additional question of Mr. 

Trundley? 

Mr. COBLE. If you will suspend just a minute, Mr. Scott. Folks, 

we have a vote. I’m inclined—I hate to keep the panel here, but, 

Bill, how long will it take you? 

Go ahead, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have you sought civil remedies against the people 

who were involved in these crimes? 

Mr. TRUNDLEY. In the United Kingdom we have, so, yes, but the 

opportunity has not presented itself within the United States. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have those actions been successful? 

Mr. TRUNDLEY. In the United Kingdom it was successful in that 

we managed to obtain what’s known as a John Doe High Court Injunction; that is, an injunction threatening contempt of court 

against persons unknown, which is completely novel and new in 

the U.K. 

Mr. SCOTT. But no civil damages? 

Mr. TRUNDLEY. No, but once the individuals have been identified, 

we would serve that injunction upon them, and then go for damages as well. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I will be very brief. 

Mr. COBLE. Bill, if you will suspend, if you need more time we 

can adjourn and come back. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, that will be unnecessary. 

In terms of the line of questioning by Mr. Scott, I think the concerns regarding first amendment issues can be resolved by more 

35

closely drafted language. I am still at the point, however, where I 

am not convinced that we are going down a road of federalizing 

criminal law. And I know Dr. Basso wanted to say something in 

response to the questions I asked earlier, and so let me give her 

that opportunity. 

Mr. COBLE. And Doctor, if you could be brief, we won’t keep you 

all here, but we have to go vote, so if you could be terse. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. This will wrap it up anyhow. 

Dr. BASSO. Sure. I guess I was thinking as you were talking that 

there’s a particular organization that is moving from State to State 

and establishing little niches of animal rights activity across the 

country, and it struck me that that’s more an important issue that 

we as a nation should be taking into account rather than a State 

to State——

Mr. DELAHUNT. But my point, Dr. Basso, is that clearly, for example, the Post is showing the AK-47. Most States have State statutes which prohibit threats——

Dr. BASSO. Right. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, I would suggest that that State statute would just clearly have been violated with that particular depiction because the most reasonable inference would be that it was 

intended to create fear, to threat, to provide a threat. And the point 

is that State prosecutors will often act much more quickly and expeditiously where aware or fully informed of the concerns that both 

you and Mr. Trundley, I believe, have provided us, have testified 

to, that there is more than enough criminal sanctions out there 

today. It’s a question of, in my judgment, educating law enforcement both at the State and local, as well as the Federal level, because Federal resources are very limited. It is only, I dare say, 

those high profile cases; for example, out in Vail, Colorado, it was 

a cause celebre, if you will out there, that directed the attention of 

the Federal authorities to pursue it. 

So in any event, you and your associations, professional associations, trade associations might very well want to communicate your 

concerns to the appropriate National District Attorneys Association, State Attorney Generals Association, National Association of 

Chiefs of Police, and I think you would find a very favorable and 

positive response. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. I thank the panelists, I think 

those in the hearing room who are obviously interested in this 

issue. I apologize for our abrupt departure, but we must go vote. 

But again, I thank the witnesses for your testimony. 

In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration of 

this important issue, the record will be left open for additional submissions for 7 days. Also, any written question from a Member to 

the panel will be required within that same 7-day period. 

This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 4239, the ‘‘Animal 

Enterprise Terrorist Act.’’ We thank you for your cooperation and 

attendance. And without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY


scott1.eps
38


scott2.eps
39

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS


Lee1.eps
40


Lee2.eps
41

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS


inhofe.eps
42


inhofe1.eps
43

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS E. PETRI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN


petri1.eps
44


petri2.eps
45

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. FRANKIE L. TRULL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH


Trull0001.eps
46


Trull0002.eps
47


Trull0003.eps
48


Trull0004.eps
49


Trull0005.eps
50

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE R. BISTRIAN, PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION

OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY (FASEB)


FASEB1.eps
51


FASEB2.eps
52


FASEB3.eps
53


FASEB4.eps
54


FASEB5.eps
55


FASEB6.eps
56


FASEB7.eps
57


FASEB8.eps
58


FASEB9.eps
59

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. MARK L. BIBI, GENERAL COUNSEL, LIFE SCIENCES

RESEARCH


bibi1.eps
60


bibi2.eps
61


bibi3.eps
62

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. GALE DAVY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WISCONSIN

ASSOCIATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH & EDUCATION


WABRE1.eps
63


WABRE2.eps
64


WABRE3.eps
65

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. KEITH KAPLAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FUR

INFORMATION COUNCIL OF AMERICA


FICA0001.eps
66


FICA0002.eps
67


FICA0003.eps
68


FICA0004.eps
69

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. WESLEY J. SMITH, J.D., SENIOR FELLOW, DISCOVERY

INSTITUTE


smith1.eps
70


smith2.eps
71


smith3.eps
72


smith4.eps
73


smith5.eps
74


smith6.eps
75


smith7.eps
76


smith8.eps
77


smith9.eps
78

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES C. GREENWOOD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION


bio1.eps
79


bio2.eps
80


bio3.eps
81


bio4.eps
82

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE (CHI)


CHI0001.eps
83


CHI0002.eps
84


CHI0003.eps
85

RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF THREAT POSED BY ANIMAL RIGHTS

EXTREMISTS, CONDUCTED BY THE CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE (CHI)


CHIa0001.eps
86

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE FROM THE ANIMAL ENTERPRISE

PROTECTION COALITION (AEPC)


AEPC0001.eps
87


AEPC0002.eps
88


AEPC0003.eps
89

LETTER FROM F2 CHEMICALS LTD


CHEM1.eps
90


CHEM2.eps
91


CHEM3.eps
92

LETTER TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME TERRRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

FROM DR. AMANDA CARSON BANKS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE CALIFORNIA BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION


petri0001.eps
93


petri0002.eps
94

LETTER TO THE U.S. COMMITTEE ON ANIMAL RIGHTS EXTREMISM FROM MRS. WENDY

BANTIN


bantin.eps
95

TOP 20 LIST OF ILLEGAL ACTIONS BY ANIMAL AND ECO-TERRORISTS, 1996–2006, 

COMPLIED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH


Top0001.eps
96


Top0002.eps
97


Top0003.eps
98


Top0004.eps
99


Top0005.eps
100


Top0006.eps
101


Top0007.eps
102


Top0008.eps
103

NEWS ARTICLE, ANIMAL RESEARCH DOES NOT VALIDATE TRESPASS

Æ


schlag0001.eps