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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–521 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 109–1005

ECO–TERRORISM SPECIFICALLY EXAMINING STOP

HUNTINGDON ANIMAL CRUELTY (‘‘SHAC’’)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 26, 2005

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

(

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

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

OCTOBER 26, 2005

OPENING STATEMENTS

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

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 30

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 4

Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota ...................... 10

WITNESSES

Bernard, Richard P., executive vice president and general counsel, New York

Stock Exchange .................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

Bibi, Mark L., general counsel, Life Sciences Research, Inc. and Huntingdon

Life Sciences, Inc. ................................................................................................. 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Boruchin, Skip, NASDAQ market maker, Legacy Trading Company ................. 18

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

Lewis, John E., Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation ............................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

Sabin, Barry M., Chief, Counterterrorism Section, Criminal Division, U.S.

Department of Justice ......................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Vlasak, Jerry, M.D., press officer, North American Animal Liberation Press

Office ..................................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Article:

‘‘The Animal Zealotry That Destroyed Our Lab,’’ by Mark S. Blumberg,

Washington Post ............................................................................................ 50

Doris Day Animal League ................................................................................ 53

Charts:

HLS CEO Attacked and Beaten with a Baseball Bat at His Home ............. 62

SHAC Attacked Homes of HLS Scientists ...................................................... 63

SHAC Leaflets Chiron Executive’s Neighborhood ......................................... 64

SHAC Directs Members to Contact NYSE ..................................................... 65

Jerry Vlasak is an Actor in Multiple Animal Rights Terrorists Groups ..... 66

SHAC Attacked Home of Skip Boruchin in Oklahoma ................................. 67

SHAC Attacked Office of Skip Boruchin in Oklahoma ................................. 68

SHAC Leaflets HLS Executive’s Neighborhood with Slanderous Material . 69

SHAC Orders Direct Action on HLS ............................................................... 70

DOJ Resource Guide on the Domestic Terrorist Threat of SHAC ............... 71

Business Card Illustrates the Collusion of Multiple Animal Rights

Groups ............................................................................................................ 72

Letters:

Kerr, Jeffrey S., general counsel and director of corporate affairs, People

for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Foundation (PETA)........................ 54–58

Lenon, Jordana, National Association for Biomedical Research .................. 59
Page

IV

—Continued

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

States ............................................................................................................. 60

Society for Animal Protective Legislation ...................................................... 61

Statement, Bistrian, Bruce R., M.D., Ph.D., president, Federation of American

Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) ..................................................... 48
(1)

ECO–TERRORISM SPECIFICALLY EXAMINING

STOP HUNTINGDON ANIMAL CRUELTY

(‘‘SHAC’’)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406,

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

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Inhofe, Thune, and Lautenberg.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator INHOFE. The committee will come to order. We have a

longstanding habit of starting on time, whether other members are

here or not.

Today, the Committee on Environment and Public Works will

discuss the committee’s investigation into eco-terrorism. This hearing is the second hearing we have had on this subject. We will

focus on Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, ‘‘SHAC,’’ a radical animal rights organization that relies on crimes of violence and a campaign of fear to convey their message of animal liberation. SHAC

evolved with the purpose of ruining a contract research organization called Huntingdon Life Sciences. We will refer to that as HLS,

also known as Life Science Research, a New Jersey-based company

that conducts EPA and FDA mandated testing on animals.

This testing may some day provide a cure for cancer, AIDS,

blindness and the possibilities are endless, as we, the Congress,

have determined that this testing is necessary to ensure the safety

of our consumers.

Our first two witnesses, John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director

of the Counterterrorism Division of the FBI, and Barry Sabin, Section Chief of the Counterterrorism Division of the Department of

Justice are here to explain SHAC’s revolutionary tactics used to

pressure people through tertiary or third party targeting to stop

any and all business with HLS. SHAC targets all HLS service providers and clients under the theory that without them, HLS cannot

operate.

SHAC is able to effectively bully companies by using extremely

dangerous and frightening tactics, including the use of bombs,

arson, violence against people and property, intimidation, and harassment. We have a chart that depicts the HLS CEO who was at-
2

tacked with a baseball bat by SHAC. That is on my side of the two

charts, you can see his head is bleeding profusely. He was near

death at that time.

[The reference document follows on page 62.]

SHAC calls these tactics direct actions, and its level of violence

and propensity for harm has led the FBI to include SHAC, along

with the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front,

as the most serious domestic terrorist threat today, having committed over 1,200 acts of terror and over $200 million in damages.

There is a need for tighter, yet concise legislation to curb this

criminal activity that, up to date, has been impervious to law enforcement authorities. Such legislation will close the gaps in the

criminal code that have allowed SHAC, working with multiple

other animal rights groups, the freedom to terrorize people.

Mark Bibi, general counsel for HLS, will inform us about not

only the years of terror that HLS executives, scientists, and other

employees and their family members have endured as SHAC’s primary target, but also the costs associated with operating a research

entity because of SHAC. Notice the chart that illustrates multiple

scientists’ homes that were attacked, coupled with the loss of research, loss of scientists and security costs of the interference with

HLS’ ability to compete in the financial markets.

[The reference document follows on page 63.]

Just last month, HLS was to be listed on the New York Stock

Exchange. The Exchange refused to go through with the scheduled

listing because of threats from SHAC. Here is a chart illustrating

the SHAC Web site threatening the New York Stock Exchange.

[The reference document follows on page 65.]

When this happened on September 7, I sent a letter to the New

York Stock Exchange cautioning them on such an important decision and expressing my concerns about setting a dangerous precedent. As I said in my letter, it seems to me unimaginable that this

country’s worldwide symbol of the integrity of the capital markets,

the New York Stock Exchange, would capitulate to threats or even

the mere threat of threats from a single issue extremist group.

Appeasing these groups only validates the effectiveness of their

tactics and inspires them to replicate this model of activism in

some other venue. What then will happen when the activists move

to the timber industry or the defense industry or some other controversial industry? Today we will seek information from the New

York Stock Exchange about this decision.

One of my constituents, Skip Boruchin, from Oklahoma, endured

several years of SHAC’s terror, along with his family and employees. He is with us today to tell his story. Skip’s home and office—

notice these charts—were attacked by SHAC and ALF.

[The reference documents follow on pages 67 and 68.]

Finally, the committee will hear from animal rights activist, Dr.

Jerry Vlasak. Dr. Vlasak is highly controversial, since he has gone

on record advocating the end of biomedical research using animals

by any means possible, including assassination—that’s murder—of

scientists. In fact, Dr. Vlasak has been banned from the United

Kingdom for such volatile statements.

We need to understand and assess the dangers associated with

the research culture that is under attack. If researchers do not re-
3

ceive protection and the opportunities to fairly compete, will they

leave the United States for places like China and India? These are

questions we must seek the answers to in order to determine the

best response to this troubling issue.

Consequently, I am introducing legislation today that will assist

law enforcement in their plight to combat the criminally-based

SHAC campaign that targets innocent and necessary actors in an

industry that promotes innovation and discovery.

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Today the Committee on Environment and Public Works will discuss the Committee’s investigation into Eco-terrorism. This hearing, the second installment in a series of hearings, will focus on Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (‘‘SHAC’’), a radical

animal rights organization that relies on crimes of violence and a campaign of fear

to convey their message of animal liberation. SHAC evolved with the purpose of ruining a contract research organization called Huntingdon Life Sciences (‘‘HLS’’) also

known as Life Science Research, a New Jersey-based company that conducts EPA

and FDA mandated testing on animals. This testing may, some day, provide us the

cure for cancer, AIDS, blindness the possibilities are endless and we, as the Congress, have determined that this testing is necessary to ensure the safety of our consumers. Our first two witnesses John Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director of the

Counterterrorism Division for the Federal Bureau of Investigations and Barry

Sabin, Section Chief of the Counterterrorism Division of the Department of Justice

are here to explain SHAC’s revolutionary tactics used to pressure people through

‘‘tertiary’’ or ‘‘third party’’ targeting to stop any and all business with HLS. SHAC

targets all HLS service providers and clients under the theory that without them,

HLS cannot operate. SHAC is able to effectively bully companies by using extremely

dangerous and frightening tactics including the use of bombs, arson, violence

against people and property, intimidation, and harassment. We have a chart that

depicts HLS’ CEO who was attacked with baseball bat by SHAC.

SHAC calls these tactics ‘‘direct actions’’ and its level of violence and propensity

for harm has led the FBI to include SHAC along with the Animal Liberation Front

and the Earth Liberation Front as the most serious domestic terrorist threat today,

having committed over 1,200 acts of terror and over $200 million in damages. There

is a need for tighter yet concise legislation to curb this criminal activity that, up

to date, has been impervious to law enforcement authorities. Such legislation will

close the gaps in the criminal code that have allowed SHAC, working with multiple

other animal rights groups, the freedom to terrorize people.

Mark Bibi, General Counsel of HLS, will inform us about not only the years of

terror that HLS executives, scientists, and other employees and their family members have endured as SHAC’s primary target, but also the costs associated with operating a research entity because of SHAC. Notice the chart that illustrates multiple

scientists’ homes that were attacked. Coupled with the loss of research, loss of scientists, and security costs is the interference with HLS’ ability to compete in the

financial markets. Just last month HLS was to be listed on the New York Stock

Exchange only to find out at the 11th hour that the Exchange refused to go through

with the scheduled listing because of threats from SHAC. Here is a chart illustrating the SHAC website threatening the NYSE. When this happened on September 7, I sent a letter to the New York Stock Exchange cautioning them on such

an important decision and expressing my concerns about setting a dangerous precedent. As I said in my letter, it seems to me unimaginable that this country’s worldwide symbol of the integrity of the capital markets, the NYSE, would capitulate to

threats, or even the mere threat of threats, from a single issue extremist group. Appeasing these groups only validates the effectiveness of their tactics and inspires

them to replicate this model of activism in some other venue. What then happens

when activists move to the timber, defense, or some other controversial industry?

Today we will seek information from the New York Stock Exchange about this decision.

One of my constituents, Stephen (‘‘Skip’’) Boruchin from Oklahoma, endured several years of SHAC’s terror along with his family and employees and he is with us

today to tell his story. Skip’s home and office—notice these charts—were attacked

by SHAC and ALF. Finally, the committee will hear from animal rights activist, Dr.
4

Jerry Vlasak. Dr. Vlasak is highly controversial since he has gone on record advocating the end of biomedical research using animals by any means possible including the assassination of scientists. In fact, Dr. Vlasak has been banned from the

United Kingdom for such volatile statements.

We need to understand and assess the dangers associated with a research culture

that is under attack. If researchers do not receive protection and the opportunities

to fairly compete will they leave the United States for places like India and China?

These are questions we must seek the answers to in order to determine the best

response to this troubling issue. Consequently, I am introducing legislation today

that will assist law enforcement in their plight to combat the criminally based

SHAC campaign which targets innocent and necessary actors in an industry that

promotes innovation and discovery.

Senator Lautenberg.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I don’t know whether I need my sign before I make my speech.

Senator INHOFE. I don’t have mine up. You don’t need yours.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you very

much for holding this hearing today. The subject is very important,

and I think it has to be apparent that there is nothing that we can

say that justifies criminality. Among the subjects I know that we

review in this committee on a regular basis are subjects of terror

and what if any involvement that we are aware of that takes place.

We want to step up and defend people’s rights to dissent, but also

prosecute those, recommend prosecution of those who would break

the law.

I served in the Army during World War II, and our rights as

Americans are precious to me, including the right of free speech

and political dissent. One person’s rights, where another person’s

safety begins, is often a delicate question. Nobody has the right to

jeopardize the safety of anyone else. Anyone who believes that they

have that right because their ideological beliefs are so strong is

sorely mistaken.

I support the right, as I said, to free political speech that is not

based on threats or harassment. Protests and demonstrations are

legal and legitimate means of advocating for change. But I condemn violence and I support the prosecution of criminal behavior.

I believe that laboratory tests involving animals can be necessary

and important for the advancement of science and medicine and

the protection of public health. I would hope that that wasn’t the

case. If it is determined that that is the only way to establish the

safety and efficacy of a product that is going to be used on humans,

unfortunately, so be it.

When such testing is necessary, it must be conducted under

strict standards and subject to regular inspection and oversight.

Even though I believe such testing can be necessary, I understand

that some people don’t share my views. These people have a right

to engage in legitimate public debate on the topic. They have a constitutional right to speak their minds and even stage protests.

They do not have a right to engage in violent, criminal or threatening activities, as some members of an organization with the acronym SHAC, Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty have done. I deplore

these actions for several reasons. Not only do these illegal actions

victimize innocent citizens in my State, they are also used to tar
5

with a broad brush anyone who supports the cause of animal rights

or protecting the environment. I support animal rights. I am very

careful about that, and have been an advocate for safe transportation of animals and care of animals. I stand by that.

But while the actions of SHAC may fall within the statutory definition of terrorism, the fact is, our Nation faces much greater

threats of terrorism from other sources, which does not mean that

we should let this pass by unnoticed or not acted upon. SHAC’s illegal acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

They should not divert our attention from great, great threats to

lives, health and safety of the U.S. citizens, including in New Jersey, such as the need for greatly increased chemical security. We

have people at risk within the nearby vicinity of chemical plants

that could conceivably kill millions if they are attacked with serious weaponry.

So Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to present my

views on this issue.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. That was an

excellent statement. I hope it is not inappropriate for me to say

that I totally agree with your statement. I think it is the best statement I have ever heard you make in the 19 years we have been

here. Thank you very much.

[Laughter.]

Senator LAUTENBERG. I thought I made one in my 18th year——

Senator INHOFE. My memory isn’t that long.

[Laughter.]

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.

So that the witnesses will be aware, while we are short of members here, the members all have staff that is here. Members will

be coming in and out. We have things that are going on on the

floor. I even have an amendment myself on the floor right now.

We will go ahead with opening statements. Mr. Lewis, we will

start with you. Just try to stay within 5 minutes or so. Your entire

statement will be made part of the record. Take what time you

need to make, because your testimony—and yours, Mr. Sabin—are

very important.

Mr. Lewis.

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

INVESTIGATION

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg. I am

pleased to return before this committee and continue discussions

regarding the threat posed by animal rights extremists.

I am here today to speak to you about how members of the animal rights extremist movement advance their cause by using socalled direct action against individuals, as well as companies. I see

disturbing signs of success in what they are doing, and legitimate

business enterprises are suffering.

I will also touch on the limitations of existing statutes and the

need to amend legislation if there is agreement that more needs to

be done to address this problem.
6

When I was last here in May, I spoke of direct action taking

many forms, to include harassment and intimidation of an escalating nature, vandalism also of an escalating nature, and more severe criminal actions, such as the use of improvised incendiary and

explosive devices.

There are two types of targets today in the cross-hairs of animal

rights extremists who are on the receiving end of the so-called direct action. The first includes individuals and companies which directly interact with animals, such as is the case with our medical

research industry. The second type is individuals and companies

which do not directly interact with animals, but who have business

ties with companies which do.

The direct actions carried out by those associated with the animal extremist movement are very definitely executed to harass, intimidate, destroy property, inflict economic harm, with the ultimate

aim of terminating normal business operations. Within the animal

rights extremist movement, we are currently seeing a significant

amount of direct action activity that we are unable to effectively

address given the Federal statutes we have to work with.

This activity involves the targeting of secondary or tertiary companies which have business or financial relationships with another

principal target. This activity typically takes the form of and begins

with harassment of employees through telephonic contact, e-mail or

in person. This kind of harassment escalates if the desired effect

is not reached and can quickly involve into intimidation and legitimate concerns for physical safety.

In other cases, we have seen vandalism used to make a point, followed by contact with business principals to make sure they understand there is more to follow if the animal rights extremists’ demands are not met.

The point of this activity, very successfully executed in recent

cases, I might add, is to force business owners to sever ties with

the principal target, an act that disrupts business and one that can

inflict serious economic damage. The Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign, best known as SHAC, is best known for this tactic.

SHAC, as you are aware, has since its inception, targeted Huntingdon Life Sciences, both in the United Kingdom and here in the

United States. Their overriding goal is to put HLS out of business

by whatever means necessary, to include violent means.

Although they have not been successful, there is no doubt that

HLS has suffered significantly from a financial point. SHAC has

made it their business to target companies that are affiliated with

HLS, from pharmaceutical companies to builders to investors. It is

not enough to say that SHAC targets companies, that is not personal enough. SHAC targets people, individuals in these companies, men and women who hold management positions and on occasion their family members. SHAC has used a variety of tactics to

intimidate these affiliated companies, employees, family members,

to include bombings, death threats, vandalism, office invasions,

home visits with and without vandalism, phone blockades and denial of service attacks on their computer systems and the like.

I can report to you today that this strategy has been quite effective. SHAC has forced well over 100 companies to sever ties with

HLS, including Aetna Insurance, CitiBank, Deloitte and Touche,
7

Johnson and Johnson, Merck and others. Their current target list

includes GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, UPS, as well as multiple financial institutional investors.

Let me give you a couple of examples here, and I think we have

gone over some of these before. In August 2003, two explosive devices were detonated at the Chiron Corporation out in California.

A month later, an improvised explosive device exploded at the

headquarters of the Shaklee Corporation, also in California. The

second device that detonated at Chiron was timed to go off later

than the first, and in my view, an apparent strike at first responders.

At Shaklee, that device was constructed with nails, to significantly increase its lethality to anyone in the area at time of detonation. That claim of responsibility that followed indicated that all

customers and their families are considered legitimate targets, no

more will all the killing be done by the oppressors, now the oppressed will strike back.

In another more recent example, just last month an incendiary

device was left on the front porch of a senior executive at

GlaxoSmithKline in England. GlaxoSmithKline is one of SHAC’s

main targets. It was Animal Liberation Front, in this particular

case, that claimed responsibility. In their message, they wrote:

‘‘This is just the beginning. We have identified and tracked down

many of your senior executives and also your junior staff. Drop

HLS or you will face the consequences.’’

Last month, Huntingdon Life Sciences entered into a business relationship with the New York firm Carr Securities. Carr is a market maker and intended to market HLS stock. On the very day following its first series of transactions, SHAC vandalized the

Manhasset Bay Yacht Club. The Yacht Club was vandalized because certain Carr executives are believed to be associated with

that club. Three days after this incident, Carr Securities terminated its business relationship with HLS, and did so with a public

announcement that is still on the Internet today.

An investigation is being conducted by us at several institutional

investment firms around the country today who either now own or

have had HLS stock. Several of them have been targeted; some of

this is currently going on as we speak and others not yet. In some

cases, these firms have sold their shares in order to bring an end

to the harassment and intimidation. SHAC’s Web site features a

statement attributed to a CEO of one such company: ‘‘Please be advised that as of today, Cortina Asset Management does not own

any shares of Huntingdon Life Sciences Research. We have sold all

of our shares in LSRI today. This will confirm that we have no intention of dealing with HLS stock at any time in the future.’’

Existing statutes make it relatively easy for the FBI to pursue

direct actions that include arsons and bombing. It is a different

story with respect to the harassment via telephone, e-mail, office

and home visits, vandalism to property, intimidation and the like.

The existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism statute, set forth at 18

U.S.C. 43, does provide a framework for prosecuting the individuals

involved in animal rights extremism. However, in practice, this

statute does not cover many of the activities SHAC routinely engages in on its mission to shut down HLS.
8

Investigating and preventing animal rights extremism is one of

our highest domestic terrorism priorities, as you know. We are

committed to working with our partners to disrupt and dismantle

these movements, to protect our fellow citizens and to bring to justice those who commit crime and terrorism in the name of animal

rights.

We are also committed to working with the Congress to develop

statutes and amend those statutes that will allow us to accomplish

this mission.

Chairman Inhofe, Senator Lautenberg, I appreciate the opportunity to come back here and would be pleased to take any questions when we are finished here.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Sabin.

STATEMENT OF BARRY M. SABIN, CHIEF, COUNTERTERRORISM SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. SABIN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, thank you for

providing me the opportunity to testify before you concerning the

Department of Justice’s efforts to investigate and prosecute entities

and individuals who commit criminal acts in the name of animal

rights.

In order to ensure that the Department has all the necessary investigatory tools, legal authorities, and appropriate penalties, the

Department supports amending title 18, United States Code, section 43 to include, among other things, economic disruption to animal enterprises and threats of death and serious bodily injury to

associated persons. The proposed modifications provide a clear and

constitutional framework consistent with the first amendment for

timely, effectively and justly addressing prohibited criminal conduct that will ensure that victims’ rights are respected and preserved.

As this committee well knows, animal rights extremists have not

hesitated to use violence to further their social and political goals.

In those cases where individuals have used improvised incendiary

or explosive devices, Federal prosecutors are well equipped to prosecute and punish such individuals using the tools provided in title

18, United States Code, section 844.

Domestic violence by animal rights extremists is not limited,

however, to the use of arson and the use of explosives. As Mr.

Lewis has described in his testimony, Stop Huntingdon Animal

Cruelty and other animal rights extremist organizations and entities are engaging in a campaign of criminal conduct which is calculated to aggressively intimidate and harass those who have been

identified as targets, including Huntingdon Life Sciences.

The personal and economic consequences of this campaign have

been and will continue to be significant. In the past, this kind of

criminal conduct was prosecuted as a violation of the Hobbs Act,

codified in section 1951 of title 18 of the United States Code. In

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, however, the United

States Supreme Court held that in order to commit the extortion

that is the gravamen of the Hobbs Act violation, a defendant must
9

actually obtain property, that is, he or she must take a tangible

thing of value from his or her victim.

On the other hand, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, codified at section 43 of title 18, is still an important tool for prosecutors seeking to combat animal rights extremists. The Department

has used section 43 to charge SHAC and individual defendants in

Federal district court in New Jersey.

While section 43 is an important tool for prosecutors, SHAC and

other animal rights extremists have recognized limits and ambiguities in the statute and have tailored their campaign to exploit

them. Accordingly, the Department supports the draft bill to

amend section 43 in order to address several gaps in the law that

keep prosecutors from using it in the most effective manner possible.

First, the statute’s definition of the type of animal enterprise

that it protects is not broad enough to include some of the entities

that are now targeted by SHAC and other animal rights extremists. These include pet stores and even animal shelters. Second, the

statute’s use of the phrase ‘‘physical disruption’’ to describe the

conduct it proscribes unnecessarily suggests that it covers a narrow

scope of conduct.

Third, the proposal would include this type of criminal conduct

as a predicate for seeking electronic surveillance authority. Fourth,

in its current form, the statute fails to address clearly the consequences of a campaign of vandalism and harassment directed

against individuals as opposed to the animal enterprise itself. The

proposal would remedy this ambiguity by clearly stating that committing the proscribed conduct against an individual, including an

employee of an animal enterprise, or of an entity with a relationship with an animal enterprise, is equally illegal.

Finally, the proposal provides a range of penalties, including imprisonment, fines and restitution that are tailored to reflect the nature and severity of the criminal conduct. It is important to underscore that this Congress and the Justice Department have taken

significant steps to assist and protect victims of crime. The Justice

for All Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support 1 year ago

and is codified in section 3771 of title 18. The attorney guidelines

on victim and witness assistance, as revised in May of this year,

recognize the rights of crime victims and the importance of reasonable protection for victims from defendants or those persons acting

in concert with or at the behest of suspected offenders.

The proposed legislation seeks to build upon this foundation. The

criminal conduct of animal rights extremists is directed against individuals and companies in order to intentionally place these victims in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. These victims often suffer mentally, physically, and monetarily when extremists threaten them, damage their property and affect their

livelihood.

This is not first amendment protected speech, but rather criminal conduct that is within the traditional realm of statutes prohibiting threats, violence or injury to innocent victims. In seeking to

meet the challenge of these changing forms of criminal conduct by

animal rights extremists, the Department is acutely aware of the

importance of protecting the first amendment rights of those who
10

protest any cause they believe right, including the testing and

other use of animals.

Let me be clear: The Department does not seek to prosecute

those who enter the arena of debate seeking to persuade their government or private businesses and individuals of the merit of their

viewpoints. This proposal would not, indeed could not, criminalize

such protected activity. We seek to prosecute criminal conduct, including conduct that places a person in reasonable fear of death or

serious bodily injury.

The first amendment is not a license for the use or threatened

use of violence or for the commission of other crimes. Those who

cross the line from free speech to criminal conduct should be prosecuted and if convicted, they should be punished appropriately. As

it has done in other contexts, the Congress must give prosecutors

the tools to do so fairly and effectively.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your

leadership on this issue and again for inviting us here and providing us the opportunity to discuss how the statutes are being

used consistent with our constitutional values to fight violent extremism. Together, we will continue our efforts to secure justice and

defeat those who would harm this country.

Thank you.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Sabin.

Senator Thune, Senator Lautenberg and I have already given

opening statements. If you would like to make an opening statement, you are recognized to do so.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a long

statement, but I appreciate your willingness to examine this issue

and am obviously anxious to hear the perspective that the Department of Justice and others have about the law enforcement implications of this issue, and also to hear the testimony of the panelists

with respect to some of the threats that they face.

I hope that in shining a light on some of these terrorist activities

we will be able to form some basis or foundation that hopefully will

lead us to a course of action. I am not sure what that is at this

point, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is important to have this discussion, to invite these witnesses to testify about what they are experiencing out there and to look at what we can do to help address

and keep people in this country safe.

Thank you.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Thune. That comment leads

me into the first question for you, Mr. Lewis. You heard Mr. Sabin

talk about the recommended specific changes by title. Have you

had a chance to review the recommendations of Mr. Sabin? What

is your response to that?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, I have. I endorse what the Department of Justice has put forth. It will allow us to reach through our investigative activity those actions as directed at both property and persons

of secondary or tertiary companies that happen to do business with

companies like HLS, something we have great difficulty finding

now through the statutes that we have.
11

Senator INHOFE. I think in your written testimony you said that

there are some 100 companies that have been identified that have

been subjected to this type of abuse. Is that accurate?

Mr. LEWIS. Not that have just been identified, sir, but that have

quit doing business with HLS at some cost to that company, I

might add.

Senator INHOFE. Why do you think the companies are so quick

to back out? It is a terrorist organization. Why do they so easily

respond to the demands?

Mr. LEWIS. Sir, in my view, these companies give in to SHAC at

least in part, if not in whole, because they believe that their business, their customers, their employees, their employees’ family

members can all become targets of what has become fairly well

known from SHAC, their harassment, intimidation, violence in the

form of vandalism at their homes, at their business or worse. There

are far too many examples of this for these businesses not to be

aware of it.

I am certain these companies are well aware of this radical

movement of which SHAC is clearly a part. I am certain that they

are well aware that there are many arsons throughout the country

attributed to this movement. I am sure they are aware, for instance, that there has been use of improvised explosive devices,

that you can go on these Web sites that the animal extremists, people who are associated with that movement, the Web sites that

they go to, you can find recipes for making these types of devices.

The fact of the matter is, when a management official is faced

with this kind of thing, when he is associated with a company that

is doing business with HLS and is all of a sudden contacted by

SHAC, all these things I have described I know are going through

his head. He knows what their successes are. I am sure he knows

what, to some extent, how successful law enforcement has been,

and we haven’t been that successful at all.

I believe these companies make a bottom-line decision at the end

of the day: Do I want to go through all this and have my employees

and family members and customers put up with this, or do I want

to take a step back at some small expense to me, and I will let HLS

pick up somewhere else.

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Lewis, you testified before this committee

last April or May when we had a similar hearing with ALF and

ELF, the Animal Liberation Front and the Environmental Liberation Front. Will you share with us how you see SHAC in relationship to ALF and ELF?

Mr. LEWIS. Within the animal extremist movement there are

three principal organizations that concern me on a daily basis.

SHAC is one of those. There are three entities that concern me

most on a daily basis in the work I do associated with animal

rights extremism and environmental extremism: ELF, ALF and

SHAC. From time to time there are others that come up on the

scope. Some of these are associated with the three that I have just

mentioned. But these names cross my desk on a daily basis.

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Sabin, in your testimony you said to terrorize people effectively, the SHAC Web site lists 20 terrorist tactics to use on people and companies. How do they use the Web sites

or the Internet in getting their message out?
12

Mr. SABIN. They use that kind of communication device which is

not just for the local cell, but for nationwide and even international

audience, so that they can take it from a local to a national level.

It is low cost; it has controlled readership; it enables them to conduct training or communications rather than traveling from one location to another, which would inhibit a law enforcement response,

a disruptive response because of their traveling or other kinds of

interaction. It provides a secure method for them to communicate

on a cheap and effective large scope basis.

It is something that is not just promoting its views, but organizing a direct action campaign. So they link it to specific terror

tactics that are articulated on the Web site and set forth in the indictment in New Jersey and SHAC—that criminal case—to explain

the manner in which they use that technology.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. This afternoon I am going to introduce legislation that we put together. I want you guys to realize

that we want to untie your hands. What I would like to ask of you

is if you would take the legislation that we are going to be introducing—it will be assigned to the Judiciary Committee—and tell us

if there are any imperfections on that. Because even though it will

not be assigned to this committee, we can certainly have an impact

and plan to be there as witnesses when the hearing is held. Can

you do that?

Mr. SABIN. We would be happy to do so.

Senator INHOFE. That’s good.

Senator Lautenberg.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am a little confused about whether or not

the conventional law enforcement codes don’t protect people from

the kinds of activities that you have described: Harassment, intimidation, boycotts that are other than just a demonstration—physical

boycotts. Isn’t there protection for citizens within the code, the law

enforcement codes as we know it?

Mr. SABIN. There are some protections. But we could do better

in terms of making it a more nuanced response to the campaign

that SHAC and animal rights extremists are presently undertaking. So you could, for example, charge as we have charged in

the case in your State, Senator, interstate stalking as a criminal

violation.

But section 43, which is addressed specifically to the animal enterprise terrorist activities, as presently drafted, only addresses—

physical disruption, is the term. So the nature of the conduct, attacks both by SHAC and other groups inspired by their activities,

goes not only against physical disruption, but the language that we

would suggest would be economic damage, economic disruption,

and threats against the person.

So you are not only going against the property of individuals and

animal enterprise, or those associated with the animal enterprise,

but the threats, force or violence that is inflicted upon an innocent

victim who somehow is associated with that animal enterprise in

legitimate business conduct.

Senator LAUTENBERG. It sounds like a fine line to me. I want to

do what we can to protect people’s rights to operate safely under

the law or to go about their normal living. I have no sympathy for

those who would use felonious criminal methods to bring a goal or
13

an objective across. What we ought to do is, if it is illegal, if the

activity that the company or the individual is doing is illegal, well,

then we ought to fix that also.

But as long as it is a legal operation, then I don’t see any reason

why we would tolerate anything that smacks again of intimidation,

harassment, talk about harming children, harming your family, destroy a business where people go that has nothing to do with the

operation of the company in mind. It is just totally unacceptable.

My son lives in Colorado, and he lives in an area called Vale, CO

where they burned down a lodge there, a beautiful place that the

company had put up, according to the law. It was just destructive,

just destructive to go ahead and burn it down. It wasn’t just the

economic cost, it was the threat against people who are conducting

their lives, making their living by working in that company, not

doing a thing wrong. It was outrageous, and we had the FBI, they

just unfortunately it was always a suspicion that it was an environmental group, but it was never proven. So therefore we can’t assess the blame.

But these things—let me ask you something, Mr. Sabin. If a boycott was threatened and the company’s stock dropped on the Exchange or in the marketplace, would that be included in a recommended statute, loss of economic value? And again, if the activity is wrong, it’s wrong. There is no sympathy coming from me.

Mr. SABIN. It would depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of the matter. The ability to engage in the marketplace

of ideas as affecting the market of the financial district is something that could be within protected first amendment activity.

Phoning your Senator’s office, writing a letter, depending upon

what the letter said, depending upon the nature of the activity,

could fall within the parameters of legitimate first amendment conduct.

But when that becomes as articulated in our concern over a

course of conduct, where it goes beyond mere speech to actual conduct in connection with not an isolated event, but a number of

events, that is something that would fall outside the first amendment. So we can get into specific facts and circumstances relating

to an event, or a number of events, and we would look at that in

the scope of our activities as to whether it is appropriate to open

a criminal investigation and then to actually charge and prosecute

that.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that I see

the fine line. But if there is an open question, I think we ought to

close it. Thank you both.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.

Senator Thune.

Senator THUNE. Mr. Chairman, it sounds like there is pretty

broad support for addressing this in the form of your proposed legislation. I just have a couple of questions, and forgive me if this is

ground you covered in your testimony.

What is the trend line with respect to these sorts of incidents of

domestic terrorism, eco-terrorism in the past several years? Is it

spiking up? Is it gradual, flat? Has it always been the case? And

then the follow-up question to that would be, in addition to any legislative authorities that you might need that are not available to
14

you today, in the form of enabling legislation, is funding an issue

when it comes to enforcement and making sure that you are appropriately cracking down on people who commit these types of acts?

Mr. LEWIS. Sir, funding is not an issue. We can take that off the

table. It is simply not an issue.

With respect to the trend, there is no doubt that over the last

several years, by virtue of the successes that continue to pile up in

the absence of strong statutes that enable me to pull the rug out

from under their feet, so to speak, or the Bureau, I should say, not

just me, the trend is that they are becoming very effective at disrupting legitimate business. If we are talking about SHAC, the disruption is of course aimed at Huntingdon Life Sciences. As the

weeks and months go by, more and more companies are forced to

submit to their will and quit doing business with HLS.

We also see continuing use of the Internet to advocate what we

consider to be increasingly violent activity. We have seen rhetoric

on there of late, as has been mentioned here, that includes assassinations and murders as a way of bringing about change if they

can’t do it otherwise.

In short, the trend is, I believe this is on the rise. There is an

abundance of this activity which I am looking at right now. I don’t

feel, with the tools that I have to use today, that we can be as effective as we otherwise might. I believe that this piece of legislation

that we have all looked at—and I know that you all have worked

with is an excellent piece that will give us what we need.

Mr. SABIN. I would agree that there is an increasing spike in the

activity. I would also agree that the tools as discussed with respect

to the loss of the Hobbs Act, because of the Supreme Court decision, causes this need for a gap to be filled, specifically in section

43 of title 18. We have a budget with respect to resources, a budget

request that we would be happy to work with Congress in order to

address this in the coming weeks and months.

I never say no to resources, as long as we can articulate and justify the appropriate ability to use them effectively in our terrorism

program and work with the FBI to achieve what we need to

achieve to address the mission.

Senator THUNE. The principal issue then is not funding; it is

statutory authority, and the baseline authority that you have today

enables you to deal from a law enforcement standpoint with physical violence, like under any circumstance you would have, but the

authorities that you are seeking have to do more with the hazing,

these types of intimidation activities and sort of economic terrorism, so to speak. It looks like that is the principal mode of attack for people who are behind these types of acts.

Mr. SABIN. Yes, the definition of what would constitute economic

damage or economic disruption based upon the monetary amount.

One of the things that we would underscore is the ability to use

it as a wire tap predicate, as an investigatory tool.

So going back to the Chairman’s original question as to the use

of the Internet, the ability to use that to intercept communications

that are being conducted through that mechanism or other communication mechanisms, is often an important means of getting competent evidence that we can use, either to prosecute an individual

or prosecute a group.
15

With the additional penalties in a proposed statute, you combine

those investigatory tools, the overall understanding of what we are

trying to do in our terrorism program, which is prevent rather than

respond to an incident. Then you have the leverage of increased

penalties to get cooperators that can then provide the modus operandi, the manner and means by which an organization or movement is conducting its criminal activities.

Senator THUNE. It looks, Mr. Chairman, like we need some deterrence to this sort of activity and clearly there is, it looks like to me,

a basis for action on the part of the Senate to deal with this. So

I appreciate your effort to do that, and I thank the gentlemen for

their testimony.

Senator INHOFE. Senator Thune, you might be interested to know

that the United Kingdom is really ahead of us here. They have had

this problem in a more severe way for a longer period of time than

we have. And in fact, it is my understanding that the company that

we are talking about, HLS, actually was a U.K. company and they

moved here because of all the threats and the violence that was

taking place over there.

What I have, and I think this is a good place to do it, put into

the record at this point the bill that was passed in the United

Kingdom dealing with this. We are taking a lot of things from this

bill, since they had this problem before we did. That is influencing

the type of legislation that we are introducing. So without objection, I will have this as part of the record at this point.

[The referenced document was not received at time of print.]

Senator INHOFE. We thank both of you for coming today and we

will, in fact, invite you, either yourselves or your staff to stay and

hear the next panel because we are going to be dealing with this

issue, and I think it would be good for you to hear them. You are

dismissed.

We would ask the next panel to come forward. The next panel

is Mark Bibi, general counsel for the Huntingdon Life Sciences,

from New Jersey; Skip Boruchin, of the Legacy Trading Company

in my State of Oklahoma, Edmond, OK; Richard P. Bernard, executive vice president and general counsel of the New York Stock Exchange; and Dr. Jerry Vlasak, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or

SHAC, from Santa Monica, CA.

What we are going to do is start our testimony with Mr. Bibi and

we will work across the table here. As I instructed the first panel,

your entire statement will be made a part of the record. We invite

you to try to limit your remarks to about 5 minutes. Mr. Bibi, you

are recognized.

STATEMENT OF MARK L. BIBI, GENERAL COUNSEL OF LIFE

SCIENCES RESEARCH, INC. AND HUNTINGDON LIFE

SCIENCES, INC.

Mr. BIBI. Thank, you, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman Inhofe and

members of the committee. My name is Mark Bibi. I am general

counsel of Life Sciences Research and our operating subsidiary,

Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the dangers posed by SHAC, as you have just heard identified
16

by the FBI as one of the Nation’s leading domestic terrorism organizations. It is a serious matter and deserves a serious response.

LSR is a publicly-traded company headquartered near Princeton,

NJ. An important part of our work is to conduct Government-required animal testing on drugs and chemicals to identify risks to

humans, animals and the environment. Because of these efforts to

make sure products are safe, HLS and those who do business with

us have been relentlessly terrorized by SHAC.

As I awoke on a chilly November morning and looked out my

window, the fears that had been building ever since I was first targeted by SHAC a few months earlier were realized. My car’s front

windshield had been smashed with a large boulder. The car was

covered with animal rights graffiti. Warning messages were spray

painted all over my house: ‘‘Quit HLS, puppy killer, close HLS.’’ I

immediately knew that I had been the victim of a SHAC attack.

The impact of this violence and the implicit threat of future violence is a terrifying, life-changing event.

A few months earlier SHAC had identified me as a target in

their newsletter and on their Web site. They posted my name,

home address and phone number, with the exhortation, ‘‘Go get

’em.’’ Almost immediately, the harassment and intimidation had

begun: Nasty phone calls in the middle of the night, threatening

letters and e-mails, protesters at my home, screaming through bullhorns that I am a murderer. And now, the sanctity and safety of

my home had been violated.

Other SHAC targets have suffered beatings, acid attacks, car and

letter bombings.

SHAC uses these terror tactics not only against HLS and its employees, but also against third parties to force them to sever their

business relationships with Huntingdon. Time and again, in dozens

of cases, both customers and HLS’ providers, from accounting firms

to banks, to lawn gardeners and even remarkably our security

firm, have been forced by fear to capitulate to SHAC’s demand that

they cease working with us, deciding it is safer for them and their

employees to give in rather than to suffer the personal harassment

and intimidation.

SHAC is now attacking the integrity and independence of the

U.S. stock market system. LSR stock trades on the OTCBB market.

SHAC targets and harasses any market maker that dares to trade

in LSR stock, and more than 40 market makers have caved in to

SHAC’s intimidation.

Senator INHOFE. Let me interrupt for just a moment, for the purpose of my colleagues here, when you use LSR and HLS, we are

talking about the same organization?

Mr. BIBI. LSR, sir, is the parent holding company of HLS.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much.

Mr. BIBI. Only one of those market makers, Legacy Trading,

from whom you will be hearing shortly, currently consistently

makes a market in our stock. SHAC has a current campaign

against LSR’s institutional investors, taking advantage of public

SEC filings to identify those investors. SHAC has intimidated most

of them into selling their LSR stock, causing significant dislocation

in the market.
17

But perhaps the most shameful apparent capitulation to date,

and that which I believe poses the greatest threat to the U.S. economy, is that of the New York Stock Exchange. In the summer of

this year, we entered into listing discussions with the Exchange.

We met all the financial requirements to list our stock on the Exchange, and we told them right up front about the SHAC campaign. The New York Stock Exchange dismissed the potential risks,

pointing out that since 9/11 they had been a target of the most

dangerous terrorists in the world, assuring us they would not be

scared off by SHAC.

We spent a number of weeks completing all the necessary paperwork and interviews, keeping in regular contact with NYSE staff

throughout. On August 22, the Stock Exchange told us that we had

been authorized for listing. We issued a press release announcing

that approval, and reporting that we expected to begin trading on

September 7. That press release was approved in advance by the

New York Stock Exchange and the president of the Exchange,

Catherine Kinney, even included a quote in that release welcoming

us.

On the morning of September 7, our senior management team

went to the New York Stock Exchange’s Wall Street headquarters

for the original listing celebration. But only minutes before we

were to go down to the trading floor to watch the first trade in LSR

stock, Ms. Kinney told us that they would not be listing LSR stock

that day and that our listing had been postponed.

One of my LSR colleagues and I spent the next hour or so meeting with senior NYSE officials, including Ms. Kinney and Margaret

Tutwiler, their press secretary. They asked us and we spoke only

about the animal rights campaign against the company. It was patently clear to me that the only reason the Stock Exchange had

postponed our listing was because of concerns about the SHAC

campaign.

All Americans took pride when the New York Stock Exchange reopened for business only 4 business days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Yet apparently purely on the basis of a perceived threat from

SHAC, the NYSE postponed plans to list our stock. A handful of

animal extremists had succeeded where Osama bin Laden had

failed.

We have received no information from the New York Stock Exchange since September 7. They have never raised with us any

question of our eligibility or suitability to list. They have not asked

us for any further information. We seem to have been indefinitely

postponed, with no indication as to when, if ever, the NYSE will

tell us anything.

The risks posed by SHAC should not be underestimated. As

Chairman Inhofe has stated in his public statements, SHAC is but

the tip of the iceberg. They are the test case for a whole new brand

of activism through personal intimidation. Other activist campaigns are no doubt waiting in the wings to see how SHAC is dealt

with. Imagine the impact if SHAC tactics were used by those opposed to any myriad of other industries.

SHAC’s greatest impact has come in targeting third parties doing

business with or providing services to HLS. I urge the Congress to

adopt more effective laws that can be used to control this type of
18

third party targeting, and I am gratified to have heard this afternoon that that type of legislation is in fact being introduced.

We cannot allow the domestic terrorism practiced, fostered and

encouraged by SHAC to flourish in our own back yard. Thank you

for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Bibi.

Mr. Boruchin.

STATEMENT OF SKIP BORUCHIN, LEGACY TRADING COMPANY

Mr. BORUCHIN. Good afternoon, Chairman Inhofe, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Thune. Thank you for this opportunity to testify

before this committee today.For the last few years, I have been living a somewhat captive existence, held hostage by members of Stop

Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, SHAC, an animal rights activist/terrorist group. As you have heard, SHAC is an underground group

that uses fear and terror to force their viewpoints upon others.

I am a NASDAQ market maker, lawfully working in the State

of Oklahoma, making a market in the common stock of many companies. I have been targeted by SHAC because of my job. I am a

market maker, that is, I am continually prepared to buy or sell

shares of these companies, thereby providing a liquid ready market

for those who desire to buy or shell shares. Huntingdon Life

Sciences, also known as Life Sciences Research, Inc., ticker symbol

LSRI, is one of the companies I make a market in.

Roughly 31⁄2 years ago, my employer, Legacy Trading, became

the target, the proverbial bullseye for SHAC. This bullseye on my

life is solely due to the fact that I have been and remain the only

market maker in Life Sciences Research. SHAC launched an all-out

terrorist attack on too many other market makers, Merrill Lynch,

Charles Schwab, Goldman Sachs, to name a few. They were terrorized by SHAC’s ‘‘direct action campaigns’’ specifically to influence

and control the market in Life Sciences Research.

I am the only holdout of dozens of market makers who all

capitulated to SHAC’s demands and dropped, that is, ceased trading LSRI stock. Viewing me as the sole provider of a market for

LSRI, SHAC launched a campaign of sheer terror on me and my

family, destroying our privacy, causing dramatic changes in our

daily lives now, and I’m sorry to say, forever.

SHAC’s attempt to force me to stop trading the LSRI stock included local, national and international harassment, intimidation,

and terror. Personal information of my family, names, addresses,

social security numbers, home phone numbers, as well as those of

19 of my neighbors were published on the SHAC Web site. ‘‘Run

him out of town, tell him to drop the stock, or we will publish credit card, medical and other personal information about you.’’ Daily,

thousands of obscene and threatening phone calls to home and office at all hours, day or night. Outright slander, calling me a child

pornographer in the media and all over the Internet.

When these threats and actions did not work, SHAC moved to

far more dangerous and insidious tactics. Describing me as the

‘‘dreaded Legacy,’’ SHAC brought their crimes of terror to my

home, office, and family. One day I awoke to find that SHAC had

been in my yard. They spray-painted large messages like puppy
19

killer, drop HLS, all over the entire house. They wrote, ‘‘Skip is a

murder, 9 million dead,’’ on my garage door.

In addition to defacing my home, they cut all the lines of communication. The next day, the SHAC Web site bragged that this was

the beginning, ‘‘More direct action will come if you don’t drop

LSRI.’’

On four occasions, Legacy’s office has been terrorized. The criminals have shattered the front office windows, incendiary devices

thrown in, red paint over everything in the office including computers, furniture, floors and walls. Office equipment was sabotaged,

and spray-painted messages were left for me to know that I suffered this felony for exercising my right to make a living: ‘‘Drop

HLS, quit making a market.’’

If tactics like this were not enough, SHAC also targeted my relatives and even my 90-year-old mother. In December 2004, SHAC

posted my mother’s name, her address at her assisted living residence and her phone number on the Internet with specific instructions to have her put pressure on me as I spoke and visited with

her frequently. I quote the SHAC Web site, ‘‘Send her sex toys,

have an undertaker arrive to pick up her dead body and call her

collect in the middle of the night, pretend to be a friend of Skip’s,

ask for his cell number in order to place it on the Internet.’’

Although my mom passed away in January, the magazine subscriptions sent, the billing statements and the credit problems remain. The SHAC torment of my family did not stop with my mother. My family has been targeted and terrorized in neighboring

States with SHAC’s action tactics.

I have chosen only to tell you just a few of the harrowing, traumatic events I have gone through and go through at the hands of

SHAC. It is difficult to describe the emotions that accompany actions such as I have described. I feel violated. I am vulnerable,

angry, and gravely frightened for my family. This is precisely

SHAC’s goal, to leverage your love of your family, your value of

safety, your pursuit of life, removing my freedoms to advance their

beliefs, because I go to work each day as a market maker. It is apparent for most people facing this dilemma, the decision is simple:

drop LSRI, drop Huntingdon Life Sciences, stop making a market.

Well, I did not, and I do not intend to. I fundamentally believe

in the rights that we receive as Americans: The right to liberty and

privacy; the right to participate in government and even the right

to disagree with government; the right to free speech. The healthy

right to free speech should not hold others captive nor force them

to do anything.

SHAC inexcusably promotes the lives of animals over the lives

of the humans they target. I do not confuse SHAC’s tactic with a

noble cause nor should anyone else. Huntingdon is a company that

performs a role in the world of developing technology. But more importantly, they perform a lawful function, as do I.

Respectfully, I ask what would you do if your mother, brother,

sister, niece, nephew just went to work and were fanatically terrorized? I urge this committee to simply evaluate the consequences of

such unchecked activism. Please do not allow people to force their

causes, ideas or opinions upon others using fear, threats or criminal acts.
20

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be heard today. I am

available to answer any questions.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you so much. I appreciate your courage

very much.

Mr. Bernard.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. BERNARD, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE

Mr. BERNARD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Thune. My name is Richard Bernard, I am the general counsel of the New York Stock Exchange, and the Exchange

appreciates the opportunity to facilitate this hearing. I will try to

do that by briefly explaining our listing process and touching on

the postponement of LSR’s listing.

As Mr. Bibi suggested, the Exchange has various blackline material going to the financial well-being and the corporate governance

of a company that seeks to list on the New York Stock Exchange.

It also, however, has broad discretion to take into account any

number of other factors that the Exchange in its judgment may

think is relevant to whether a company’s stock trades on the New

York Stock Exchange.

The other thing I want to mention is that this process, with this

notable exception, is always done in confidence. The typical case is

that kinds of considerations that go into the listing process are discussed long in advance of any formal announcement, and then the

matter is announced. This allows us to avoid creating any negative

impact on a company, shareholders on its stock, based upon decisions we may make about whether we wish to list the company or

not. They may have nothing to do with the underlying value of the

company or its business or its business model.

In the case of this company, LSR, which is how we know it because we would be listing the holding company, we got our cart before our horse. We announced the decision before in fact we had

what we needed to make that decision. It resulted in, as far as I

know, an unprecedented event of Mr. Bibi and others coming to the

Exchange that Wednesday after Labor Day and learning only then

that we were deferring this decision. The Exchange regrets that. I

will apologize here to Mr. Bibi for that. I sincerely wish it hadn’t

happened.

We continue to consider the application of this company. As you

might imagine, because of the publicity that our decision and

events around it have attracted, it is obviously rather difficult to

do this process in a confidential way. But we will continue to seek

to do that. Thank you very much.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Bernard.

Dr. Vlasak.

STATEMENT OF JERRY VLASAK, M.D., PRESS OFFICER, NORTH

AMERICAN ANIMAL LIBERATION PRESS OFFICE

Dr. VLASAK. Senator, before I begin, I would respectfully request

to be able to put a couple of posters on the board. I noticed a couple

of others have been put up throughout the meeting.

Senator INHOFE. That’s perfectly acceptable.
21

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, why do we have to permit

this?

Senator INHOFE. Oh, yes, I think Senator Lautenberg has

brought up a point. We have a committee rule that unless the testimony or pictures or charts are submitted in advance, they will not

be used in the hearing. So your request is denied.

Dr. VLASAK. My request is denied?

Senator INHOFE. That’s correct. Right. Prior to any witnesses

coming in, we send a notice out saying what the rules of the committee are, and there are certain things that must be submitted in

advance. Charts are among those things. You are recognized, Dr.

Vlasak.

Dr. VLASAK. I think it only provides an insinuation that we are

not hearing both sides of the story. I assume and I have been told

by Ms. English that I was invited here to answer questions and try

to provide some balance to this hearing. I’m disappointed that I’m

not able to use those visual aids.

I received a fax on Friday afternoon which unfortunately was too

late for me to be able to provide the posters in advance to this committee and have them approved.

Senator INHOFE. Well, first of all, I don’t agree with that, because

if you knew Friday afternoon that you wanted to do this, we would

have had a chance to review those. We are going to treat you like

everybody else.

Dr. VLASAK. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Jerry Vlasak. I am

a practicing trauma surgeon, but more importantly, for today’s purpose, I am here as a press officer with the North American Animal

Liberation Press Office.

The actions of activists who care enough about animals to speak

out in no uncertain times and at times to risk their own lives and

freedom have a message that is most urgent and one that deserves

to be heard and understood. Often, acts of animal liberation either

go unreported in the media or are uncritically vilified as violent or

terrorist, with no attention paid to the suffering the industries and

individuals gratuitously inflict upon animals. The Press Office

seeks to clarify the motivation and philosophy behind these actions

taken in defense of our animal brothers and sisters.

Huntingdon Life Sciences kills 500 animals a day. That is over

180,000 animals per year. They carry out experiments which involve poisoning and torturing animals to death with household

products, pesticides, drugs, herbicides, food colorings, sweeteners,

oven cleaner and cosmetics. HLS is a contract testing company that

operates facilities in the United Kingdom and New Jersey. They

have been infiltrated and exposed in undercover investigations five

times in recent years by journalists and animal rights campaigners.

Each time, horrific evidence of animal abuse and staff incompetence has been uncovered, including workers punching beagle

puppies in the face, simulating sex with animals in their care, dissecting primates while they are still alive and falsifying experiments to get their client’s product on the market.

Two brief examples of the horrific and unscientific testing done

at Huntingdon Life Sciences include the following. An estimated

12,800 animals died in the research of the sugar substitute,

Splenda, including pregnant rabbits, beagle dogs and primates.
22

Splenda was forced down the throats of beagles who were then

killed by exsanguination, having their throats slit.

A 2003 experiment on a refrigeration component that has long

been banned from production forced 7-month-old beagle puppies to

inhale the pollutant, eventually leading to their deaths. On a daily

basis, animals used in vivisection at places like HLS are drowned,

suffocated, starved to death, they have their limbs severed and

their organs crushed; they are burned, exposed to radiation, used

in experimental surgeries; they are shocked, raised in isolation, exposed to weapons of mass destruction and rendered blind or paralyzed.

They are given heart attacks, ulcers, paralysis, and seizures.

They are forced to inhale tobacco smoke, drink alcohol and ingest

various drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. And in my very own

town of Los Angeles, primates are now being forced to ingest the

drug ecstasy.

The campaign to stop Huntingdon animal cruelty was set up at

the end of 1999 by a group of activists who had successfully closed

down numerous other facilities that bred cats and dogs for experimentation. It’s important to realize that SHAC is not just one

group or a hierarchical entity, but it is an ideology, a paradigm

shift, if you will, in the way the public views the atrocities perpetrated by companies such as HLS. Tens of thousands of people

worldwide have joined to protest the evil perpetrated upon innocent

animals in HLS labs.

While some groups like SHAC USA are legal, incorporated nonprofit organizations, other groups are just loosely knit, caring individuals of like mind. It’s ridiculous to think that SHAC is one

group with a top-down organization that controls all activities in

the 18 countries worldwide where it is currently active.

In summary, there are thousands of physicians like myself worldwide who realize there is no need to experiment on animals in

order to help humans, the vast majority of whom get sick and die

because of already known preventable lifestyle variables such as

diet, smoking, drugs, and environmental toxins. In a country where

45 million people have no access to medical care, in a world where

20,000 children are dying from lack of clean water every single

week, there is no reason to waste hundreds of millions of dollars

doing unscientific drug testing and experimenting on animals.

Huntingdon is the poster child of an abhorrent, unnecessary and

wasteful industry that not only murders millions of innocent, suffering animals, but dooms countless humans to their own unnecessary suffering, because scarce health care dollars are wasted on

useless animal research and testing. The struggle for animal liberation needs to be seen in an historical context, like the Boston

Tea Party ignited a revolution, like Nelson Mandela and his fight

against apartheid, like the suffragettes and John Brown, all of

these noble and historical figures fought the governmental powers

of oppression, slavery and exploitation.

Today, groups like SHAC USA and other SHAC activists around

the world fight legally to end these needless atrocities and the ALF

and other groups fight underground for the same purpose. This

struggle will go down in history as one of the most moral ever

fought.
23

Regarding the proposed legislation that I heard Mr. Sabin and

others mention, I remind you of the quote by John F. Kennedy,

‘‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent

revolution inevitable.’’

Thank you.

Senator INHOFE. I will start with you, Mr. Bibi. Something that

was going through my mind during your testimony is, it would appear to me that we could be subjecting ourselves, if this type of behavior would continue, with losing some of our top scientists, researchers and others to countries, as I said in my opening statement, like China, India, and other places. Do you have any thought

about that?

Mr. BIBI. I would tend to agree with you, sir. Scientists deserve

the right to conduct their vital research in a safe and secure environment. If proper protections are not afforded by our country to

permit that, I have little doubt that unfortunately they would look

elsewhere.

Recent developments in the United Kingdom are perhaps instructive in this regard. It’s been reported in the press that as the

animal rights terrorism issue grew significantly worse over the

past couple of years, the CEOs of a number of leading British pharmaceutical companies confirmed directly to Prime Minister Blair

that they would not spend one additional dollar on research facilities in the United Kingdom until the matter was brought under

control.

In fact, I read in the newspaper just this week that a number

of African countries, including South Africa, have made an affirmative effort to reach out to the scientific community in the United

Kingdom and the United States to say, come work here, it is going

to be safer for you to do so.

Senator INHOFE. That’s interesting.

Mr. Boruchin, we hear about this type of perverted terrorism,

and you never think about it being close to home, at least I don’t,

until I read your testimony before this hearing. I think you and

Mr. Bibi have both been personally subjected to something that’s

just—it’s hard to believe that that could happen in Oklahoma.

I would ask you, you mentioned free speech. Having been the

target of this for the last 3 years, do you think that SHAC’s form

of activism is protected by free speech? You may not have the background to respond to that, but I’m sure you have talked to others

and gotten opinions. What do you think?

Mr. BORUCHIN. My personal opinion would be that by removing

my freedoms to advance their beliefs, I don’t believe that is protected by free speech.

Senator INHOFE. The idea of the listing, and Mr. Bernard, of

course, we want to hear from you on this, but do you think that

it is a costly thing either to you, or you might answer the same

thing, Mr. Bibi, on not achieving the listing that you had anticipated you would receive?

Mr. BIBI. Obviously, the postponement of our listing has had a

very negative effect on our company and our stockholders. The confidential review process that Mr. Bernard alluded to was in fact

conducted in connection with our application early in the process.

That would have been the time, obviously, for any issues or con-
24

cerns to have been raised. In fact it was not, and we were affirmatively told in writing that we had cleared the eligibility review

process and were invited to submit the formal application.

The fact that our listing was postponed only after it had been

made public has been nothing short of disastrous, quite frankly.

Our stock price, for example, had traded consistently in the $12 to

$14 range in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the listing, closing at $14.05 on the day before that announcement. On the

day of the listing, the stock traded up as high as $18.30 a share,

before closing at $16 a share. On the day before the listing was

postponed, we closed at $17.50 a share. Then on the day when we

announced the postponement, we fell $2.50 to $15 a share, or

roughly $30 million or so, immediately out of our shareholders’ investment portfolios as a direct result of that.

For a couple of weeks after the announcement, 3 or 4 weeks after

the announcement, the stock held roughly in the $14 range, and I

can only speculate that the investment community believed that

the New York Stock Exchange simply had to list us. It was inconceivable that that would not be the case. Regrettably, it appears

that the investment community is now losing faith in the likelihood

of the Stock Exchange doing the right thing, as our stock has now

traded down to about $10 a share.

So roughly $100 million of market value has been lost, as well.

If we are ultimately denied the listing, we would lose all the benefits that the New York Stock Exchange offers, in terms of increased

liquidity, better stock platform.

Senator INHOFE. I would assume, Mr. Boruchin, that you have

suffered similar types of economic loss.

Mr. BORUCHIN. I’m a little confused. As I understood, the company met all the requirements of the New York Stock Exchange.

I know there are two other companies that do similar testing in

their business, and they are on the Exchange.

For me personally, it probably would have resulted in a loss of

income, because as a market maker, I am not on the New York

Stock Exchange. However, the other side is, the target on my back

probably would have been eliminated. I question why they are not

on the Exchange, and am concerned, as you are, whether the terrorists, SHAC, had any influence on that.

Senator INHOFE. We have a witness we will be asking those

questions of.

Before we do that, I would like to ask my two colleagues if there

is any objection to taking a little bit longer on each one. We do

have a vote at 4:15, and if we could just have a little bit longer

than the 5 minutes, if that’s all right.

Mr. Bernard, you had used the term postponing and deferring

the listing. Is it your anticipation that the process is still ongoing,

or would you like to respond to any of the comments that have

been made concerning the Exchange?

Mr. BERNARD. The process is ongoing, and I otherwise have no

comment.

Senator INHOFE. OK. Dr. Vlasak, do your fellow animal rights activists understand that animal testing is required by law and

therefore, the people who are performing this testing are merely
25

following the law? Do they understand that, and do you understand

that?

Dr. VLASAK. I understand that they are merely following the law,

and the law in this case is wrong, just like the law that allowed

slavery was wrong at one time.

Senator INHOFE. Well, you mentioned slavery, you also mentioned slavery in several of the comments that you made, as well

as your testimony. You analogized the plight of animals to that of

the African-American slaves of early American history, asserting

that the animal rights movement is similar to that of the Underground Railroad. You even at one time or several times have talked

about the Jews in Nazi Germany.

It sounds to me, in looking at this, like you’re evaluating the

lives of human beings in a similar way that you are animals. Do

you think animals’ lives are as precious as human life?

Dr. VLASAK. Non-human lives, non-human animal lives, are as

precious as human lives. At one time, racism and sexism and

homophobism were prominent in our society. Today speciesism is

prominent in our society. It is just as wrong as racism.

Senator INHOFE. So you do put them in the same category, the

animals of non-human and human lives? Is that correct?

Dr. VLASAK. They are morally equal.

Senator INHOFE. They are morally equal?

Dr. VLASAK. They are.

Senator INHOFE. One of the statements you made at the animal

rights convention when you were defending assassinating people,

murdering people, you said—let me put it up here to make sure I’m

not misquoting you—‘‘I don’t think you’d have to kill, assassinate

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

save 1 million, 2 million, or 10 million non-human lives.’’

You’re advocating the murder of individuals, isn’t that correct?

Dr. VLASAK. I made that statement, and I stand by that statement. That statement is made in the context that the struggle for

animal liberation is no different than struggles for liberation elsewhere, whether the struggle for liberation in South Africa against

the apartheid regime, whether the liberation against the communists, whether it were the liberation struggles in Algeria, Vietnam or Iraq today, liberation struggles occasionally or usually, I

should say, usually end up in violence.

There is plenty of violence being used on the other side of the

equation. These animals are being terrorized, murdered and killed

by the millions every day. The animal rights movement has been

notoriously non-violent up to this point.

But I don’t believe that—I believe as my statement says——

Senator INHOFE. Let me interrupt. You said it has been notoriously non-violent up to this time?

Dr. VLASAK. That is correct.

Senator INHOFE. You don’t think there is violence in the testimony you’ve heard?

Dr. VLASAK. I think when you compare the 500 animals being

murdered every single day at Huntingdon Life Sciences, which is

just one company, I think when you look at the amount of violence

that goes on at Mr. Boruchin’s house, getting a little spray paint

on the wall, I think if you look at the amount of violence that went
26

on at this yacht club in New York, where again, some spray paint

was slapped up on a wall, I don’t think you can compare that kind

of vandalism with the murder of millions of animals.

Senator INHOFE. So you call for the murders of researchers and

human life?

Dr. VLASAK. I said in that statement and I meant in that statement that people who are hurting animals and who will not stop

when told to stop, one option would be to stop them using any

means necessary and that was the context in which that statement

was made.

Senator INHOFE. Including murdering them, is that correct?

Dr. VLASAK. Pardon?

Senator INHOFE. Including murdering them?

Dr. VLASAK. I said that would be a morally justifiable solution

to the problem.

Senator INHOFE. Senator Lautenberg.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Vlasak, you approve of these dastardly

acts in the name of liberation, of a liberation movement. Do you

have any children?

Dr. VLASAK. I have no children. Just to be clear, I don’t approve

of any unnecessary suffering. I wish these things didn’t have to

happen.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Fine. You do. What you have said confirms

it. So I just want to go there. I want to know who you are, what

makes you tick. Because it is so revolting to hear what you say

about the murder. These aren’t extermination camps. What’s being

done, whether you like it or not, is to try and improve the quality

of life for human beings. This isn’t Germany.

How do you feel about people, you said you think people who

have a cause have a right to violence. How about the guys who kill

our soldiers and who killed the people in the Trade Towers? They

have a cause. Is that ok with you?

Dr. VLASAK. No. Unnecessary loss of life is never ok with me. I

extend that loss of life to animal life, non-human animal life as

well.

Senator LAUTENBERG. You’re the super moralist, you’re deciding

where it’s right and where it’s wrong. Many people who have

causes, some of them justified, but to take tactics like the intimidation of people to spoil their lives or spoil their ability to make a

living is an outrageous thing to propose. You’re anti-social in your

behavior, obviously. But to sit here so smugly and be proud of the

fact that you stand by this statement about 5 or 10 lives, if those

lives were your kids, well, maybe you don’t have anybody you love.

You don’t have any kids.

Can I ask you a question? Mr. Boruchin’s life has been exposed,

credit card numbers, everything else. Where did you go to medical

school?

Dr. VLASAK. I attended medical school at the University of Texas,

in Houston.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Where do you practice now?

Dr. VLASAK. I practice in the Los Angeles area.

Senator LAUTENBERG. At a hospital?

Dr. VLASAK. I do. A number of hospitals.
27

Senator LAUTENBERG. What is your favorite, what is your dominant hospital activity?

Dr. VLASAK. I practice at several hospitals in the Riverside and

San Bernadino area.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Name one.

Dr. VLASAK. Loma Linda University.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think in terms

of the New York Stock Exchange, a place I am familiar with

through my earlier business life, ADP, and also my company, my

ex-company, provided restoration of activities after 9/11. The assault took place on a Tuesday and by Monday, my company, my excompany, without contract, without pricing discussions, had a company named Cantor Fitzgerald back and operating in less than 6

days, never had any business with them before.

So I am directly involved, have been, and we listed on the New

York Stock Exchange. We could subpoena records, I guess, Mr.

Chairman, and find out why it is that the New York Stock Exchange decided not to permit this company’s listing. Because if all

things are in order, this isn’t the local golf club or something.

Someone applies and they have the qualifications financially and

there is no scandal attached, I assume that you have no right not

to list. Is that so, Mr. Bernard?

Mr. BERNARD. No, sir, that’s not so. Those so-called blackline criteria are the minimum bar, and the Exchange has the right, in its

rules approved by the SEC, to bring in other factors in making a

listing decision.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right. But if they meet the criteria that’s

established, is someone saying, I don’t like the way he combs his

hair or something?

Mr. BERNARD. Well, it’s certainly not to be trivialized, but the

Exchange has minimum criteria that are financial and corporate

governance.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right.

Mr. BERNARD. After that, it’s making a business decision, just as

ADP would in choosing to help Cantor Fitzgerald, for which ADP

should be very much appreciated.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I think we ought to go further.

Dr. Vlasak, how do you feel about animals like rats and mice?

The use of experimentation on them to see how they react to different medications, things of that nature, would you permit that?

Dr. VLASAK. I think it’s a hugely wasteful use of scarce resource

dollars that we have in the medical industry. We have much better

ways of showing whether a drug is toxic to a human being or not,

rather than choking it down a rat’s or a mouse’s throat.

I think from a scientific standpoint——

Senator LAUTENBERG. If they are injected——

Dr. VLASAK. Pardon?

Senator LAUTENBERG. If they are injected with a material, is that

OK?

Dr. VLASAK. As I was trying to explain to you, I think from a scientific standpoint, there is so little validity to doing that, that we’re

wasting hundreds of millions of scarce health care dollars. Even if

it did work, though, and it doesn’t, but even if it did, I’d still be

against it. Because the same reason I’m against the experimen-
28

tation that happened on human beings against their will, whether

it was in Nazi concentration camps or whether it was here in the

United States——

Senator LAUTENBERG. We shouldn’t experiment on human

beings.

Dr. VLASAK. There were people who were experimented on

against their will. They have good, useful results and they published it in the same medical journals that I read today. But it was

wrong. Whether it worked or not doesn’t matter.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Since I have the mic on this side, I would

prefer that we follow my line. So you would say, there is something

called the Lautenberg Cancer Research Center. I helped establish

that, because my father died when he was 43 years old. He got sick

at age 42, he worked in a mill in Patterson, NJ, as did his brother,

my uncle. He died when he was 52, also cancer, their father died

also of cancer when he was 56.

When I had the good fortune of success in business, I put some

resources into a group of New Jersey scientists who were moving

abroad, to learn more about cancer research. After watching my father suffer for a year, 13 months, he was athletic; he was strong;

he exercised; he was very careful about his diet. I had enlisted in

the Army when my dad finally died, and I made the decision then

that I would do whatever I can to try and prevent another family

from undergoing the same torture and grief, the same individual.

But you are so smug, if you’ll forgive me, about what is right and

what is wrong. If I asked you a question about mice, mice that are

raised particularly, Mr. Chairman, for learning more about the

anatomy of the animal and see if we can convert that. Right now,

there is all kinds of talk about using, even using animal organs for

life saving. You wouldn’t permit that, would you?

Dr. VLASAK. Well, I’m sorry to say that your organization is

wasting money on mice and rat experimentation, when we know

much better ways to find cures for human beings.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I’ll tell the scientists there about that.

Dr. VLASAK. Let me just address the transplantation issue that

you brought up. As you know, xenotransplantation, or placing animal organs into human beings, that’s not going to work. It hasn’t

worked, and it’s not going to work any time in the near future. We

have a hard enough time transplanting human organs into human

beings and all the immunosuppressives that are required to do

that.

Senator LAUTENBERG. We can’t find them all that we need.

Dr. VLASAK. Well, we could, if we had a presumed consent law,

for instance. If you guys would pass a law that says everybody’s an

organ donor unless proven otherwise, or unless they declare they

don’t want to be. This has been done in Belgium, they get all the

organs they need by doing laws like that.

There is not a shortage of organs absolutely, there is a shortage

of organs that we can get at the last minute. I deal in trauma patients, I see people die every day. I save lives, but I lose lives sometimes as well.

Senator LAUTENBERG. But you’re willing to take lives. That’s the

anomaly here. You are willing to say that somebody you don’t
29

know, somebody’s kid, somebody’s parent, somebody’s brother,

somebody’s sister, take that life, that’s ok.

Dr. VLASAK. These are not innocent lives.

Senator LAUTENBERG. You’ll teach those SOBs a lesson about

killing those mice or killing those animals, or doing experimentation that’s going to make this world——why are we living longer?

It is because we experimented in different ways. And for you to sit

there and you decide what the proper course of action is in the

sanctity of your practice and the rules of your club here, which is

identified in your statement, ‘‘morally acceptable,’’ I don’t want to

waste my own energy any more.

Mr. Chairman, this is an outrage to have an individual sit here

and impose a standard that is supposed to fit all of society. I don’t

know whether, at Mr. Bibi’s company, everything they do is exactly

right. I know that what they’re trying to do is to help us live better

lives, all of us. And I hope that they continue.

And when I see a kid down here, at Walter Reed Hospital, who’s

lost a leg or lost a part of his body, and they find ways, because

they have experimented with things, maybe to regrow even bone,

it’s fantastic, and I want it to continue. You have no right to intimidate people who are engaged in a proper practice under our

laws. You want the law changed? Write letters. Come down here

and ask for a change in law about whether or not animal experimentation is right. Don’t take the law into your own hands. That’s

a bad mistake.

Dr. VLASAK. HLS isn’t trying to save human lives. They’re trying

to turn a profit, nothing else.

Senator INHOFE. Senator Lautenberg, thank you. I think you and

I can go a long ways to correcting what we have seen here today

with the law that we are introducing, and I look forward to working with you on the floor of the Senate to make sure that we get

this thing passed and give the FBI and the Department of Justice

the necessary tools to stop this type of perversion in our society.

My son called me up right before this hearing, he noticed we

were having this hearing. He’s a doctor. He said, at some point, you

need to explain to them that it’s either going to be the lives of

these animals or human life. When I call him back, Dr. Vlasak, and

tell him that we have a witness who equates animals lives with

human lives, then that takes away all the argument. If you believe

that in your own heart, what you do, and you have advocated the

assassination, the murder of human lives, of human beings, of researchers, then I don’t see any reason to go any further with this.

I can just assure you that we are going to give law enforcement

the necessary tools to stop this type of thing from happening. I can

assure you of that. That’s not a maybe, that’s a definite.

And the rest of you, for having the courage to come here and relate this to us today, I can assure you that there are many members who aren’t here who are on this panel whose staff is here.

They will be submitting questions for the record to all four of you.

I hope that you will be able to respond to those, and I can assure

you, this has been a very useful hearing. I appreciate your presence

here.

We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
30

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF VERMONT

Today, the Environment and Public Works Committee holds its second hearing of

the year on ‘‘eco-terrorism,’’ this time focused on an extremist animal rights group

called ‘‘Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty’’ or SHAC.

Like every member of this Committee, I condemn the campaign of violence and

intimidation perpetrated by members of this group. Motivated by their extreme animal rights agenda, SHAC members have claimed responsibility for sabotage, trespass, destruction of property, harassment and vandalism.

These actions are criminal. And we have laws already on the books that allow

prosecution for such crimes. While SHAC has not caused any serious injuries or

deaths in the United States, we should act quickly to prevent the escalation of this

violence. I therefore was pleased to learn that the U.S. Department of Justice has

indicted seven of SHAC’s leaders, who are currently awaiting trial in New Jersey.

These extremists do not represent the mainstream environmental or animal

rights community. Mainstream groups have been very effective in using lawful

means to advance their agenda. Educational outreach, shareholder resolutions and

dedicated volunteers have significantly improved the treatment of animals in the

United States. Groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, the People

for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Doris Day League and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have all submitted letters to

the Committee denouncing violence in the name of animal protection. I’d like to

enter these letters into the official record of today’s hearing.

When Americans think of terrorism, they think of the collapse of the Alfred P.

Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the attack on the World Trade Center,

or the bloody images on the nightly news from Iraq. In contrast, SHAC appears to

be composed of perhaps a few dozen extremists engaged in a systematic campaign

of intimidation and harassment of a single animal testing company. In our current

state of fear, it is easy to get headlines by using the term ‘‘terrorism.’’ But sometimes, a criminal is just a criminal.

I also believe that there are higher priorities that this Committee should be devoting its time and energy. If we are truly interested in protecting our citizens from

the effects of domestic terrorism, we should be focusing on the security of the nation’s critical infrastructure, such as our wastewater and chemical plants. We

should also be working to finance the nation’s water infrastructure and to protect

kids from exposure to dangerous chemicals. Directing help to the victims of Katrina,

Rita and now Wilma should also be a high priority for the Committee. In contrast,

the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee does not have jurisdiction

over either the Animal Enterprises Protection Act or the U.S. criminal code. As a

result, there is not much this Committee can do in response to these hearings.

Nevertheless, I take seriously the Department of Justice’s recommendations that

amendments to our criminal code would enhance the law enforcement community’s

ability to respond to the illegal actions of animal rights extremists. I will consider

co-sponsoring a proposal with Senator Inhofe to further refine the Animal Enterprise Protection Act to give prosecutors the tools necessary to combat animal rights

extremists. Such a proposal would need to fill the gaps in the existing law while

respecting the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. I look forward to reviewing Senator Inhofe’s proposal and working with our colleagues on the Judiciary

Committee, which would likely have jurisdiction over such a bill.

I regret that I cannot be in attendance at today’s hearing due to a scheduling conflict with the Finance Committee meeting to discuss World Trade Organization negotiations and the international trade agenda with Ambassador Portman. I will review the transcript of the hearing and may submit questions for the record.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. LEWIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COUNTERTERRORISM

DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Good morning Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords, and members of the

Committee. I am pleased to be here again to discuss the threat posed by animal

rights activists, and by the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or the SHAC movement in particular.

I am here today to speak to you about how members of the animal rights extremist movement advance their cause by using so-called direct action against individuals or companies. ‘‘Direct action’’ is criminal activity designed to cause economic
31

loss or to destroy property or operations. I see disturbing signs of success in what

they are doing and legitimate business is suffering. I will also touch on the limitations of existing statutes.

It is critical to recognize the distinctions between constitutionally protected advocacy and violent, criminal activity. It is one thing to write concerned letters or hold

peaceful demonstrations. It is another thing entirely, to construct and use improvised explosive or incendiary devices, to harass and intimidate innocent victims by

damaging or destroying property, or other threatening acts. Law enforcement should

only be concerned with those individuals who pursue their animal rights agenda

through force, violence, or criminal activity. Unfortunately, the FBI sees a significant amount of such criminal activity across our investigations.

Let me begin with a brief overview of the domestic terrorism threats that come

from special interest extremist movements such as the Animal Liberation Front

(ALF) and the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign. Members of

these movements aim to resolve their issues by using criminal ‘‘direct action’’

against individuals or companies believed to be exploiting or abusing animals, as

well as other companies believed to be doing business with the target of their direct

actions.

The extremists’ efforts have broadened to include a multi-national campaign of

harassment, intimidation and coercion against animal testing companies and any

companies or individuals doing business with those targeted companies. This ‘‘secondary’’ or ‘‘tertiary’’ targeting of companies that have business or financial relationships with the principal target generally takes the form of fanatical harassment of

employees and interference with normal business operations, using the threat of escalating tactics or violence.

The best example of this trend is the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign,

known as SHAC. Since its inception in 1999, SHAC has conducted a relentless campaign of terror and intimidation specifically targeting Huntingdon Life Sciences, an

animal research laboratory. SHAC’s overriding goal is to put HLS out of business,

by whatever means necessary even by violent means.

SHAC has targeted not just HLS, but companies that are affiliated with it.

SHAC’s website publishes lists of these companies, ranging from pharmaceutical

companies to builders to investors. SHAC has used a variety of tactics to harass and

intimidate these affiliate companies, their employees, and family members, including bombings, death threats, vandalism, office invasions, phone blockades, and denial-of-service attacks on their computer systems.

Unfortunately, this strategy has been quite effective. Over 100 companies many

of them in the U.S. have severed ties with HLS, including Aetna Insurance,

Citibank, Deloitte & Touche, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. SHAC’s current target list includes GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, UPS, and multiple financial institutional investors. SHAC has targeted not only the facilities of these companies,

but also their employees and family members.

However, when these companies or individuals are threatened or attacked, it is

not necessarily the work of SHAC itself. There may be overlap in membership in

extremist movements, which can make it difficult to identify the actual perpetrators.

Also, in the past 18 months, a number of SHAC splinter groups have been created,

which use SHAC tactics and focus on SHAC targets. This is most likely an attempt

by animal rights extremists to continue the SHAC campaign while appearing to distance themselves from the SHAC organization. However, while the SHAC organization attempts to portray itself merely as an information service or media outlet, it

is closely aligned with these groups, as well as with the Animal Liberation Front.

Many of the ALF’s criminal activities are directed against companies and individuals selected as targets by SHAC and posted on SHAC’s website.

Let me give you several examples. In August 2003, two improvised explosive devices detonated at the Chiron Corporation. A month later, an improvised explosive

device wrapped in nails exploded at the headquarters of the Shaklee Corporation

in California. The companies were targeted because they have ties to HLS. The previously unknown ‘‘Revolutionary Cells of the Animal Liberation Brigade’’ claimed responsibility via an anonymous communique, which stated: ‘‘We gave all of the customers the chance, the choice, to withdraw their business from HLS. Now you will

reap what you have sown. All customers and their families are considered legitimate

targets...no more will all the killing be done by the oppressors, now the oppressed

will strike back.’’ Following this attack, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in San

Francisco identified and charged known activist Daniel San Diego in connection

with the bombings. He is currently a fugitive from justice.

In another example, last month an incendiary device was left on the front porch

of a senior executive at GlaxoSmithKline in England. The executive was not home

when the bomb detonated, but his wife and daughter were inside. Fortunately, no
32

one was hurt. GlaxoSmithKline is one of SHAC’s main targets, yet it was the ALF

that claimed responsibility for the attack. In a message posted on the Internet, activists wrote: ‘‘We realize that this may not be enough to make you stop using HLS

but this is just the beginning. We have identified and tracked down many of your

senior executives and also junior staff, as well as those from other HLS customers.

Drop HLS or you will face the consequences.’’

That same week, British newspapers reported that a chain of children’s nursery

schools had become a target of SHAC. Leapfrog Day Nurseries, a major provider of

childcare in Great Britain, had a program that offered childcare vouchers to HLS

employees. A spokesman announced that Leapfrog Nurseries had received letters

from animal rights activists threatening physical force. One news account quoted a

letter as saying: ‘‘Not only you but your family is a target. Sever your links with

HLS within two weeks or get ready for your life and the lives of those you love to

become a living hell.’’ In order to ensure the safety of the children and their employees, Leapfrog Nurseries cut ties with HLS. Again, an extremist group other than

SHAC is believed to be responsible for the victory but by extension, it is also a victory for the SHAC campaign.

And most recently, last month Carr Securities began marketing the Huntingdon

Life Sciences stock. The next day, the Manhasset Bay Yacht Club, to which certain

Carr executives reportedly belong, was vandalized by animal rights activists. The

extremists sent a claim of responsibility to the SHAC website, and 3 days after the

incident, Carr terminated its business relationship with HLS. These are just some

of the examples of SHAC’s use of threats and violence to financially strangle HLS

and permanently mar its public image. These examples demonstrate some of the difficulties law enforcement faces in combating acts of extremism and domestic terrorism. Extremists are very knowledgeable about the letter of the law and the limits

of law enforcement. The SHAC website has a page devoted to instructing activists

on how to behave toward law enforcement officers, how to deal with interrogations,

and what to say and not say if they are arrested.

Extremists also adhere to strict security measures in both their communications

and their operations. The SHAC website advises activists to ‘‘NEVER discuss illegal

activity indoors, over the phone, or email...keep the discussion of illegal activity on

a need to know basis only. This means working only with people you know and trust

and discussing your action with the people you are carrying it out with and no one

else.’’

Despite the challenges posed by the cellular, autonomous nature of extremists and

their high operational security, the FBI and its law enforcement partners have

worked steadily to investigate and deter extremist activity. Our job is to protect all

citizens from crime and terrorism, whether international or domestic in origin. We

now have 103 Joint Terrorism Task Forces nationwide, which investigate and protect our communities from domestic and international terrorists. We have used a

wide variety of techniques to investigate criminal activity conducted by SHAC, and

have collected vital intelligence and evidence. And we are making progress.

In one example of a recent success, last May the FBI helped secure criminal indictments in New Jersey against the SHAC organization and seven of its national

leaders, charging them with Animal Enterprise Terrorism, Conspiracy, and Interstate Stalking. They are known among animal rights activists as the ‘‘SHAC 7.’’

Last September, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment against the

SHAC 7, charging them with Harassing Interstate Communications because of the

posting of ‘‘target’’ information on the SHAC website, which continues to result in

vandalism, harassment and intimidation of victim companies and their employees.

Their trial is set for February 2006.

But despite successes such as this, the FBI’s efforts to target these movements

in order to prevent and disrupt criminal activity have been hindered by a lack of

applicable federal criminal statutes. This is particularly frustrating as we attempt

to dismantle organized, multi-state campaigns of intimidation, vandalism, threats

and coercion designed to interfere with legitimate interstate commerce, as exhibited

by SHAC. While it is a relatively simple matter to prosecute extremists who have

committed arson or detonated explosive devices, under existing federal statutes it

is difficult, if not impossible, to address a campaign of low-level criminal activity

like that of SHAC.

In order to address SHAC’s crusade to shut down legitimate business enterprises

through direct action, the FBI initiated a coordinated investigative approach, beginning in 2001. FBI field offices that had experienced SHAC activity worked closely

with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Justice Department, and FBI Headquarters to explore strategies for investigation and prosecution. First, we examined the idea of

using the existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism statute, as set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 43, which provides a framework for prosecuting individuals involved in animal
33

rights extremism. In practice, however, the statute does not cover many of the

criminal activities SHAC routinely engages in on its mission to shut down HLS. The

current version of the section 43 only applies when there is ‘‘physical disruption’’

to the functioning of an animal enterprise that results in damage or loss of property.

But, as you have heard me describe, HLS has been economically harmed by threats

and coercion that did not ultimately cause property damage.

For example, in 2004, SHAC targeted Seaboard Securities, a company that provided financial services to HLS. SHAC posted the phone numbers and addresses for

Seaboard Securities’ offices on its website, and also provided detailed recommendations on how to harass the company. The SHAC campaign against Seaboard included phone blockades, office invasions and damage to property belonging to Seaboard Securities and its employees. In the wake of this pressure, Seaboard Securities severed its relationship with HLS in January 2005.

Much of this activity cannot be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 43 nor are there

other federal criminal statutes that provide effective prosecutorial remedies. Moreover, even when section 43 does apply, the current penalty of up to 3 years in prison

has failed to deter a tremendous amount of criminal conduct. The activities of SHAC

frequently fall outside the scope of the statute, and because members are wellversed in the limits of the statute, they have tended to engage in conduct that, while

criminal, would not result in a significant federal prosecution.

As we continued to examine these legislative challenges, another option we considered was prosecution under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951). Under this legal

theory, prosecution was based on the premise that the subjects were engaged in an

extortion scheme against companies engaged in, or doing business with, animalbased research. Victims were subjected to criminal acts such as vandalism, arson,

property damage, physical attacks, or the fear of such attacks, until they discontinued their research or terminated their association with or investment in animalbased research companies such as HLS.

However, the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women removed the Hobbs Act as an option. The decision states that such

conduct by activists does not constitute extortion as defined under the Hobbs Act

unless the activists seek to obtain or convert the victims’ property for their own use.

The FBI would support changes to the statutes that will address the issue of secondary and tertiary targeting by organizations like SHAC. We will continue to work

with our Department of Justice colleagues and the Congress to refine and amend

existing statutes so that we may have more effective tools to address this growing

crime problem.

Investigating and preventing animal rights extremism is one of the FBI’s highest

domestic terrorism priorities. We are committed to working with our partners to disrupt and dismantle these movements, to protect our fellow citizens, and to bring to

justice those who commit crime and terrorism in the name of animal rights.

Chairman Inhofe and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to

discuss the challenges we face in this area of our work. I would be happy to answer

any questions you may have. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF BARRY M. SABIN, CHIEF, COUNTERTERRORISM SECTION, CRIMINAL

DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for providing me the opportunity to appear here today and testify before you concerning the Department of

Justice’s efforts to investigate and prosecute entities and individuals who commit

criminal acts in the name of animal rights. In that regard, I will seek to address

some of the strengths and limitations of the laws that presently provide the means

by which we investigate and prosecute animal rights extremist matters. These investigations are an important part of the mission of the Department of Justice to

protect the American people and our institutions from acts and threats of violence.

As you know, counterterrorism is the number one priority of the Department of

Justice. As such, we remain dedicated to the task of protecting the American people

from violence and the threat of violence posed by terrorism while at the same time

protecting the First Amendment rights and other civil liberties guaranteed to all

Americans in the Constitution. In protecting America and Americans from the

threat of terrorism, though, we recognize that the threat to the American people

comes not only from extremists overseas, but also from extremists located within

our borders.

In order to ensure that the Department has all the necessary investigatory tools,

legal authorities and appropriate penalties, the Department supports amending

Title 18, United States Code, Section 43 to include economic disruption to animal
34

enterprises and threats of death and serious bodily injury to associated persons. The

proposed modifications provide a clear and constitutional framework for timely, effectively and justly addressing prohibited criminal conduct that will ensure that victims’ rights are respected and preserved.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EFFORTS TO COMBAT DOMESTIC EXTREMISTS

Mindful of incidents such as the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal

Building in Oklahoma City, the United States government is resolved to address the

use of violence by Americans, against other Americans, for the purpose of coercing

the government or intimidating civilians in furtherance of political or social goals.

The Department of Justice has had numerous recent successes in combating those

Americans who commit acts of domestic terrorism. Working in a task force approach

with our state and local partners, we have sought to timely share information across

the Nation to prevent incidents from occurring. These Joint Task Forces have

sought to use all available investigatory tools, including undercover operations and

informants, as well as all available criminal statutes, such as interstate stalking

and explosives statutes, to disrupt violent groups and marshal compelling evidence

to bring them to justice.

For example, in the past year the Department has prosecuted white supremacists

who have used or threatened to use violence against other Americans. In November,

2004, in the District of Nevada, former Aryan Nations official Steve Holten pleaded

guilty to sending threatening messages to employees of several local newspapers, as

well as state government employees. On February 25, 2005, in the Western District

of Pennsylvania, Ku Klux Klan leader David Wayne Hull was sentenced to 12 years

in prison for unlawfully teaching a government informant how to construct an improvised explosive device. Matthew Hale—formerly the leader of the World Church

of the Creator—was sentenced on April 6, 2005, to serve 40 years in prison for,

among other things, soliciting the murder of a federal district court judge in the

Northern District of Illinois. On August 30, 2005, neo-Nazi skinhead Sean Gillespie—who videotaped himself fire-bombing a synagogue—was sentenced to 39

years in prison in the Western District of Oklahoma.

The Department has also prosecuted other extremists who used or threatened to

use explosives to commit acts of violence. On July 18, 2005, Eric Rudolph was sentenced to life in prison for the bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, as well as a night club and Centennial Park in Atlanta, Georgia. On September 12, 2005, Gale William Nettles was convicted of conspiring to blow up the

Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois. On September 22, 2005, former Jewish Defense League leader, Earl Krugel, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for carrying an explosive device as part of a conspiracy to injure or impede a United States

Congressman and damage a mosque.

Similarly, the Department has also made progress in prosecuting animal rights

and environmental extremists who have violated federal law. On November 19,

2004, in the Central District of California, William Cottrell was convicted for the

arson of a car dealership in West Covina, California, as well as numerous sport utility vehicles. In the Western District of Wisconsin, Peter Young pleaded guilty on

September 2, 2005, to violations of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act arising

from his activities in 1997 in Wisconsin and other states. Earlier this month, on October 14, 2005, environmental extremist Ryan Lewis, and two associates, pleaded

guilty in the Eastern District of California to arson and attempted arson of several

partially completed homes under construction.

THE THREAT POSED BY SHAC AND OTHER ANIMAL RIGHTS EXTREMISTS

As this Committee well knows, animal rights extremists have not hesitated to use

violence to further their social and political goals. In those cases where individuals

have used improvised incendiary or explosive devices, federal prosecutors are wellequipped to prosecute and punish such individuals using the tools provided in Title

18, United States Code, section 844.

Domestic violence by animal rights extremists is not limited, however, to the use

of arson and the use of explosives. As Mr. Lewis has described in his testimony,

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (or SHAC) and other animal rights extremist organizations and entities are engaging in a campaign of criminal conduct which is calculated to aggressively intimidate and harass those whom it identifies as targets.

In pursuit of its goal of closing the animal testing operations of Huntington Life

Science (HLS), SHAC’s campaign has included a wide variety of ‘‘direct action’’ techniques specifically designed to coerce the subjects of those efforts while avoiding an

effective law enforcement response. Harassment of other businesses, and the employees of those businesses, vandalism of property belonging to individuals whose
35

1 537 U.S. 393, 123 S. ct. 1057, 154 L.Ed.2d 991 (2003).

only offense is working for a company that does business with HLS, or, even worse,

publication of private information about such individuals, their spouses and even

their young children, are only some of the techniques used by SHAC and like-minded persons to coerce and intimidate companies and individuals. With every perceived success, SHAC emboldens other extremist organizations to act similarly. The

personal and economic consequences of this campaign have been, and will continue

to be, significant.

TOOLS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF SHAC AND SIMILAR GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS

In the past, this kind of criminal conduct was prosecuted as a violation of the

Hobbs Act, codified in section 1951 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women,1 however, the United States Supreme Court held that, in order to commit the extortion that is the gravamen of

a Hobbs Act violation, a defendant must actually ‘‘obtain’’ property—that is, he or

she must take a tangible thing of value from his or her victim. The Supreme Court

specifically rejected the notion that a Hobbs Act violation was committed by a person or entity who, like SHAC, acts to deprive the victim of the free exercise of his

or her property rights. Thus, while conduct similar to SHAC’s campaign was previously investigated and prosecuted as Hobbs Act violations, after the Scheidler decision in 2003, that option was no longer available to federal prosecutors.

On the other hand, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, codified at section 43

of Title 18, is still an important tool for prosecutors seeking to combat animal rights

extremists. This statute was passed in 1992 primarily to address the problem of

those who physically intruded upon the property of entities who tested or otherwise

used animals in order to damage the property belonging to the animal enterprise.

Originally established as a misdemeanor, the statute’s penalties have been enhanced by amendments in 1996 and 2002.

The Department has used Section 43 to charge SHAC and seven individual defendants in federal district court in New Jersey. The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to engage in ‘‘direct action’’ activities, which was described by

SHAC to involve activities that ‘‘operate outside the confines of the legal system.’’

The indictment further alleges that the SHAC Website posted what it termed the

‘‘top 20 terror tactics’’ that could be taken against companies or individuals.

The six-count superseding indictment alleges violations of interstate stalking, in

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2261A, and conspiracy to utilize

a telecommunications device to abuse, threaten and harass persons, in violation of

Title 47, United States Code, Section 223(a)(1)(c). The charges are pending and a

trial is scheduled for February 2006.

While section 43 is an important tool for prosecutors, SHAC and other animal

rights extremists have recognized limits and ambiguities in the statute and have

tailored their campaign to exploit them. While the Department is confident that

some of SHAC’s conduct violates this statute in its current form, amendment of the

statute to make clear and unequivocal the application of the statute to recent trends

in animal rights extremism will enhance the effectiveness of the Department’s response to this domestic threat.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 43

Accordingly, the Department supports Senator Inhofe’s effort to amend the Animal Enterprise Protection Act in order to address several gaps in the law that keep

prosecutors from using it in the most effective manner possible.

First, the statute’s definition of the type of ‘‘animal enterprise’’ that it protects is

not broad enough to include some of the entities that are now targeted by SHAC

and other animal rights extremists. These include pet stores and even animal shelters. The threat posed to individuals associated with such organizations is no less

significant than the threat that gave rise to the original statute. Senator Inhofe’s

proposal would expand the definition of ‘‘animal enterprise’’ so that these types of

victims are also clearly included within the scope of the statute.

Second, the statute’s use of the phrase ‘‘physical disruption’’ to describe the conduct it proscribes unnecessarily suggests that it covers a narrow scope of conduct

tantamount to trespass. In that regard, the statute permits the argument that it

does not cover actions by SHAC or other animal rights extremists taken not against

an animal enterprise, but against those entities that choose to do business with an

animal enterprise. While careful parsing of the language of the statute makes clear

that this is not the case, lack of clarity threatens effective use of the statute. Senator Inhofe’s proposal avoids this ambiguity by focusing instead on ‘‘economic dis-
36

ruption’’ (that is, business losses) and ‘‘economic damage’’ (that is, physical property

damage) resulting from the threats or property damage that it would proscribe. In

doing so, it would more effectively protect animal enterprises from the criminal conduct in which animal rights extremists like SHAC currently engage.

Third, Senator Inhofe’s proposal would include this type of criminal conduct as

a predicate for seeking electronic surveillance authority. Participants in the animal

rightsextremist movement exercise excellent tradecraft, and are very security conscious. Animal rights extremists have made extensive use of the internet for communications and have relied upon electronic mail and other communications media

to interact. These communications are occurring on a national level, and electronic

surveillance provides law enforcement authorities a timely and effective means for

capturing and sharing information. Law enforcement personnel should not be restricted from proactively seeking approval from a federal district court judge to capture probative evidence that would assist their criminal investigations.

Fourth, in its current form, the statute fails to address clearly the consequences

of a campaign of vandalism and harassment directed against individuals—as opposed to the animal enterprise itself. Senator Inhofe’s proposal would remedy this

ambiguity by clearly stating that committing the proscribed conduct against an individual, including an employee of an animal enterprise (or of an entity with a relationship with an animal enterprise), is equally illegal.

Finally, Senator Inhofe’s proposal provides a range of penalties including imprisonment, fines and restitution that are tailored to reflect the nature and severity of

the criminal conduct. This broad range of penalties will enable the government to

effectively and appropriately charge the accused with a crime commensurate with

the accused’s criminal conduct and to seek punishment reflecting that degree of culpability.

Viewed in its entirety, the changes in Senator Inhofe’s proposal would empower

prosecutors with a more effective tool to meet the challenges now posed by animal

rights extremists. I strongly encourage the Committee to endorse this proposal.

PROTECTING THE VICTIMS

It is important to underscore that this Congress and the Justice Department have

taken significant steps to assist and protect victims of crime. The Justice For All

Act, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support one year ago (Title 18, United

States Code, Section 3771), and the Attorney General Guidelines on Victim and Witness Assistance, as revised in May, 2005, recognize the rights of crime victims and

the importance of reasonable protections for victims from defendants, or those persons acting in concert with or at the behest of suspected offenders. Senator Inhofe’s

proposed legislation seeks to build upon this foundation. The criminal conduct of

animal rights extremists is directed against individuals and companies in order to

intentionally place these victims in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

These victims suffer - often mentally, physically, and monetarily - when extremists

threaten them, damage their property and affect their livelihood. This is not First

Amendment protected speech, but rather criminal conduct that is within the traditional realm of statutes prohibiting threats, violence or injury to innocent victims.

RESPECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT

In seeking to meet the challenge of these changing forms of criminal conduct by

animal rights extremists, the Department is acutely aware of the importance of protecting the First Admendent rights of those who protest any cause they believe

right, including the testing and other use of animals. Let me be clear: The Department does not seek to prosecute those who enter the arena of debate seeking to persuade their government or private businesses and individuals of the merit of their

viewpoints, and this proposal would not—indeed, could not—criminalize such protected activity. We seek to prosecute criminal conduct, including conduct that places

a person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

The First Amendment is not a license for the use or threatened use of violence,

or for the commission of other crimes. Even if these crimes are politically motivated

- even if they are committed as a form of protest - Congress is empowered to prohibit the conduct it deems offensive without running afoul of the First Amendment.

Those who cross the line from free speech to criminal conduct should be prosecuted

and, if convicted, they should be punished appropriately. As it has done in other

contexts, Congress must give prosecutors the tools to do so fairly and effectively.

CONCLUSION

Prior Congressional action has provided law enforcement and prosecutors with a

solid framework within which to pursue the goal of prevention and disruption of vio-
37

lent extremism within our borders. We in the Justice Department have more work

to do to eliminate this dangerous threat, and we urge you in Congress to continue

to build upon and enhance the legal tools needed to accomplish our mutual goals.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue and again for inviting

us here and providing us the opportunity to discuss how the statutes are being used

consistent with our Constitutional values—to fight violent extremism within our

criminal justice system. We would also like to thank this Committee for its continued leadership and support. Together, we will continue our efforts to secure justice

and defeat those who would harm this country.

STATEMENT OF MARK L. BIBI, GENERAL COUNSEL, LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH, INC.

AND HUNTINGDON LIFE SCIENCES, INC.

Good afternoon, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Jeffords and members of the

Committee. My name is Mark Bibi. I am General Counsel of Life Sciences Research

and its operating subsidiary, Huntingdon Life Sciences. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the dangers posed by SHAC , identified

by the FBI as one of the nation’s leading domestic terrorist threats. It is a serious

matter and deserves a serious response.

LSR is a publicly traded company headquartered near Princeton, New Jersey. An

important part of our work is to conduct government-required animal testing on

drugs and chemicals to identify risks to humans, animals and the environment. Because of these efforts to make sure products are safe, HLS and those who do business with us have been relentlessly terrorized by SHAC.

As I awoke on a chilly November morning and looked out my window, the fears

that had been building ever since I was first targeted for terror by SHAC a few

months earlier were realized. My car’s front windshield had been smashed with a

large boulder. The car was covered with animal rights graffiti. Warning messages

were spray painted all over my house ‘‘Pup Killer’’; ‘‘Close HLS’’; ‘‘Quit Now’’. I immediately knew that I had been the victim of a SHAC attack. The impact of this

violence—and the implicit threat of future violence—is a terrifying life-changing

event.

A few months earlier SHAC identified me as a target in their newsletter and on

their web site. They posted my name, home address and phone number, with the

exhortation ‘‘Go get em.’’ Almost immediately, the harassment and intimidation had

begun nasty phone calls in the middle of the night. Threatening letters and e-mails.

Protesters at my home screaming through bullhorns that I’m a ‘‘murderer’’. And

now the sanctity and safety of my home had been violated.

Other SHAC targets have suffered beatings, acid attacks, car and letter bombings.

SHAC uses these terror tactics not only against HLS and its employees, but also

against third parties to force them to sever their business relationships with Huntingdon. Time and again, in dozens of cases, both customers’ and HLS’ providers

from accounting firms, to banks, to lawn gardeners and even our security firm have

been forced by fear to capitulate to SHAC’s demand that they cease working with

us, deciding it’s safer to them and their employees to give in rather than to suffer

the personal harassment and intimidation.

SHAC is now attacking the integrity and independence of the U.S. stock market

system. LSR’s stock trades on the OTCBB market. SHAC targets and harasses any

market maker that dares to trade in LSR stock, and more than forty market makers

have caved in to SHAC’s intimidation. Only one, Legacy Trading, currently consistently makes a market in LSR stock.

SHAC has a current campaign against LSR’s institutional investors. Taking advantage of public SEC filings to identify those institutional investors, SHAC has intimidated most of them into selling their LSR stock, causing significant dislocation

in the market.

But perhaps the most shameful apparent capitulation to date and that which

poses the greatest risk to the U.S. economy is that of the New York Stock Exchange.

In the summer of this year LSR entered into listing discussions with the NYSE. We

met all of the financial requirements to list our stock on the Exchange. We told

them about the SHAC campaign. The NYSE dismissed the potential risks, pointing

out that since 9/11, they had been a target of the most dangerous terrorists in the

world, assuring us they would not be scared off by SHAC. We spent a number of

weeks completing all the necessary paperwork and interviews, keeping in regular

contact with NYSE staff throughout, and on August 22 the NYSE told us that we

had been authorized for listing. We issued a press release announcing that approval

and reporting that we expected to begin trading on the NYSE on September 7; that
38

press release was approved in advance by the NYSE, and the President of the

NYSE, Catherine Kinney, even included a quote welcoming us.

On the morning of September 7 our senior management team went to the NYSE’s

Wall Street headquarters for the original listing celebration. But only minutes before we were to go down to the trading floor to watch the first trade in LSR stock,

the President of the NYSE told us that they would not be listing LSR stock that

day, and that our listing was postponed. One of my LSR colleagues and I spent the

next hour or so meeting with senior NYSE officials. We spoke only about the animal

rights campaign against the Company. It was patently clear to me that the only reason the NYSE postponed our listing was because of concerns about the SHAC campaign.

All Americans took pride when the New York Stock Exchange reopened for business only four business days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Yet, apparently purely

on the basis of a perceived threat from SHAC, the NYSE postponed plans to list

LSR. A handful of animal extremists had succeeded where Osama bin Laden had

failed.

We have received no information from the NYSE since September 7. They have

never raised with us any question of our eligibility or suitability to list. They have

not asked us for any further information. We just seem to have been indefinitely

postponed, with no indications as to when if ever the NYSE will tell us anything.

The risks posed by SHAC should not be underestimated. SHAC is the tip of the

iceberg they are the test case for a whole new brand of activism through personal

intimidation. Other activist campaigns are no doubt waiting in the wings to see how

SHAC is dealt with. Imagine the impact if SHAC tactics were used by those opposed

to various other industries from defense, to mining, to oil, to timber, to who knows

what else.

SHAC’s greatest impact has come in targeting third parties doing business with

or providing services to HLS. I urge the Congress to adopt more effective laws that

can be used to control this third party targeting.

We cannot allow the domestic terrorism practiced, fostered and encouraged by

SHAC to flourish in our own back yard.

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

STATEMENT OF SKIP BORUCHIN, LEGACY TRADING COMPANY

Good afternoon, Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords. Thank you for

this opportunity to testify before this Committee today.

Daily, we all are faced with choices. My choice today is to present to you factual

information that I hope will assist you. The alternative for me would be to leave

it for someone else. My past personal experience indicates my choice to present information to you will unfortunately lead to retaliation against me and my family.

For the last few years, I have been living a somewhat captive existence, held hostage by members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (‘‘SHAC’’), an animal rights

activist/terrorist group. As you have heard, SHAC is an underground group that

uses fear and terror to force their viewpoint upon others. I am a NASDAQ Market

Maker, lawfully working in the State of Oklahoma making a market in the common

stock of many companies. I have been targeted by SHAC because of my job. I am

a market maker, that is I am continually prepared to buy or sell shares of these

companies thereby providing a liquid ready market for those who desire to buy or

sell shares. Huntingdon Life Sciences also known as Life Sciences Research, Inc.,

(Ticker Symbol—LSRI) is a contract research organization that performs testing on

animals and is one of the companies I make a market in.

Beginning roughly about (31⁄2) three and one half years ago, my employer, Legacy

Trading, became the TARGET, the proverbial Bull’s Eye for SHAC. This Bull’s eye

on my back and on my life is solely due to the fact I have been and remain the

only market maker in Life Sciences Research Inc. (LSRI). SHAC launched an all out

terrorist attack on too many other Market Makers. Merril Lynch, Charles Schwab,

Goldman Sachs to name a few. They were terrorized by ‘‘SHAC’s direct action campaigns’’ specifically to influence and control the market in Life Sciences Research,

LSRI. ‘‘Drop LSRI or else!!!’’ I am the only hold out of dozens of market makers who

all capitulated to SHAC’s demands and dropped; that is ceased trading LSRI stock.

Viewing me as the sole provider of a market for LSRI, SHAC launched a campaign

of sheer terror on me and my family, destroying our privacy, causing dramatic

changes in our daily lives now and I’m sorry to say forever.

SHAC’s attempts to force me to stop trading the LSRI stock included local, national and international harassment, intimidation and terror. Personal information
39

of my family, names’ address’s social security numbers home phone numbers as well

as those of 19 of my neighbors, placed on the SHAC site. ‘‘Run him out of town,

tell him to drop the stock, or we will publish credit card, medical and other personal

information about you.’’ Daily thousands of obscene and threatening phone calls, to

home and office at all hours, day or night; outright slander calling me a ‘‘child pornographer’’ in the media and all over the internet. When these threats and actions

did not work, SHAC moved to far more dangerous and insidious tactics. Describing

me as the ‘‘dreaded Legacy.’’ SHAC brought their crimes of terror to my home, office

and family. One day I awoke to find that SHAC had been in my yard. They spraypainted large messages like ‘‘Puppy Killer’’ ‘‘Drop HLS’’ all over the entire house.

They wrote ‘‘Skip is a murderer.’’ ‘‘Nine Million Dead’’ on my garage door. In addition to defacing my home, they cut all lines of communication. The next day, the

SHAC website bragged that this was the beginning; more ‘‘direct action’’ will come

if you don’t drop LSRI!!’’

On four occasions Legacy’s office has been terrorized. The criminals have shattered the front office windows, incendiary devices thrown in, red paint over everything in the office including computers, furniture, the floors and walls. Office equipment was sabotaged and spray-painted messages were left for me to know that I

suffered this felony for exercising my right to make a living. ‘‘DROP HLS quit making a market!!!’’

If tactics like this were not enough, SHAC also targeted my relatives and even

my 90-year-old mother. In December of 2004, my mother came under attack. SHAC

posted MY MOTHER’S name, her address at her assisted living residence and her

phone number on the internet with specific instructions to have her put pressure

on me as I spoke and visited with her frequently. I quote the SHAC website when

I tell you that SHAC members were instructed to ‘‘send her sex toys, have an undertaker arrive to pick up her dead body,’ and call her collect in the middle of the

night, pretend to be a friend of Skip’s; ask for his cell number in order to place it

on the Internet.’’

The SHAC torment of my family did not stop with my Mother. My family has

been targeted and terrorized in neighboring states with SHAC action tactics. I have

chosen only to tell you of just a few of the harrowing traumatic events I’ve gone

through and go through at the hands of SHAC.

It is difficult to describe the emotions that accompany actions such as I described.

I feel violated, vulnerable, angry, and gravely frightened for my family. This is precisely SHAC’s goal to leverage your love of your family, your value of safety, your

pursuit of life removing my freedoms to advance their beliefs.

Because I go to work each day as a Market Maker. It is apparent for most people

facing this dilemma the decision is simple drop LSRI/ drop Huntingdon Life

Sciences.

Well I did not, and I do not intend to. I fundamentally believe in the rights that

we all receive as Americans. The right to liberty and privacy. The right to participate in government and even the right to disagree with government. The right to

free speech. These are all sacred opportunities that we must not take for granted

nor use against others. The healthy exercise of free speech should not hold others

captive or force them to do anything.

SHAC inexcusably promotes the lives of animals over the lives of the humans

they target. I do not confuse SHAC’s tactics with a noble cause nor should anyone

else. Huntingdon is a company that performs a role in the world of developing technology. But more importantly, they perform a lawful function, as do I. Respectfully

I ask what would you do if your mother, brother, sister, niece, nephew just went

to work and were fanatically terrorized. I urge this committee to simply evaluate

the consequences of such unchecked activism. Please do not allow people to force

their causes, ideas or opinions upon others using fear, intimidation, threats of

crimes, and criminal acts. I thank you for the opportunity to be heard, and I am

happy to answer any questions.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. BERNARD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL

COUNSEL, NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE

Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Jeffords and Members of the Committee, I

am Richard P. Bernard, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the New

York Stock Exchange (NYSE or Exchange). On behalf of the New York Stock Exchange and our President Catherine Kinney, thank you for inviting me to testify

today before the Committee. The NYSE greatly appreciates your leadership in establishing the nation’s policies on matters affecting the environment and public

works. The issues you address today surrounding the activities of environmental ac-
40

tivist groups are both timely and important, to business and consumers alike. I hope

that the information we can provide related to this topic will be of use to you and

to the Committee.

1. LISTING ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE

The New York Stock Exchange is the world’s largest cash equities market. We

serve 90 million investors, the institutional community and over 2,700 of the world’s

leading corporations. The companies listed on the NYSE have a total global market

capitalization of $21 trillion. During the first nine months of 2005, our average daily

trading volume was 1.61 billion shares, worth over $55 billion a day.

By way of background, I would like to describe the process by which a company

becomes listed on the Exchange, including the information considered by the Exchange and the bases upon which the Exchange makes a decision that a company

is qualified to list on the Exchange.

Companies seeking to list on the Exchange are subject to review from several perspectives. There are, of course, a number of specific financial and corporate governance criteria that must be met in order for a company to qualify to list. These are

specified in the Exchange’s Listed Company Manual, in which we have codified the

Exchange’s rules that relate to listed companies. Beyond these specified criteria,

however, the Exchange has broad discretion regarding the listing of a company. The

Listed Company Manual states that ‘‘the Exchange may deny listing or apply additional or more stringent criteria based on any event, condition or circumstance that

makes the listing of the company inadvisable or unwarranted in the opinion of the

Exchange. Such determination can be made even if the company meets the standards [in the Manual].’’ (See NYSE Listed Company Manual Section 101.00.)

The process of determining whether a company is qualified to list is one that is

conducted in confidence. Section 101.00 of the Listed Company Manual states that:

‘‘Prospective applicants for listing are invited to take advantage of the Exchange’s

free confidential review process to learn whether or not the company is eligible for

listing and what additional conditions, if any, might first have to be satisfied.’’ Section 104.01 of the Listed Company Manual, for domestic companies, and Section

104.02, for non-U.S. companies, then give an outline of the information needed for

the purpose of conducting a confidential eligibility review.

The process is confidential in order to protect the privacy of the company. Especially in view of the fact that the Exchange can exercise discretion to decline to list

a company that appears to satisfy the objective criteria, the Exchange has historically been concerned that companies might be reluctant to investigate listing if a

determination of non-eligibility was likely to become public. The negative implication of such a determination could have an impact on investors’ assessment of the

company, even when such a reaction would be unwarranted.

And such a reaction might very well be unwarranted. The Exchange may determine, for example, that a company is too close to the line from a financial point of

view to warrant listing at this time, although the Exchange may counsel the company that it would welcome a further inquiry from the company after a period of

time. Or it may be difficult to determine with certainty whether the company has

the number of public shareholders that the Exchange requires. Neither of these circumstances should concern investors, but a negative implication may nonetheless

attach to a disinclination to list by the Exchange, if that were to become public.

In another circumstance there may be a historical issue with the company, fully

disclosed, but which causes the Exchange to decline to list the company. If the Exchange had to be concerned about the public impact of such a determination, it

could chill the ability or willingness of the Exchange’s management to make what

is often a close and difficult ‘‘call’’.

2. LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH

A predecessor of the company, Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc, was listed on

the Exchange for approximately twelve years, beginning on February 16, 1989. That

company was removed from listing on the Exchange in December 2000 for failure

to remain in compliance with the Exchange’s financial continued listing requirements. At the time the company indicated that its financial reversals were attributable to ‘‘economic terrorism’’ by animal rights activists. Regardless of the cause,

given the financial situation in which the company found itself, the Exchange’s rules

dictated that the company should be delisted.

Life Sciences Research was incorporated on July 19, 2001 and was the vehicle

that was used to acquire the business of Huntingdon Life Sciences Research and

continue its business through a U.S.-based company. After several years of trading
41

on the over the counter bulletin board, management of the company approached the

Exchange regarding listing in mid-July of this year.

In mid-August of this year, following a typical eligibility review, the Exchange

staff informed Life Sciences Research that the company was acceptable for listing.

In a press release dated August 22, 2005, the company announced that it would list.

Following that announcement, reactions from persons associated with member organizations and others focused our attention on information that we should have considered in determining the advisability of listing Life Sciences Research’s common

stock on the Exchange. To provide an adequate opportunity for us to evaluate that

information, we informed Life Sciences Research on September 7, 2005 that its listing must be postponed. It is unfortunate that our attention was not focused sufficiently far in advance to enable us to reconsider the listing prior to the day the company was scheduled to list and out of the public eye. We sincerely regret the circumstances, and clearly would have preferred to have been able to make the postponement decision earlier than we did.

The reaction to the announcement of the listing of Life Sciences Research, and

to its postponement, has clearly focused public attention on the very serious concerns that have confronted Life Sciences Research for a number of years now, and

which you and your Committee are working to address. Unfortunately, such publicity is quite at odds with our policy of affording applicants a confidential listing

evaluation. That policy is the reason why we have limited our public response to

an acknowledgement that the listing of Life Sciences Research has been postponed.

We will continue to try to conduct our evaluation in confidence, difficult as that may

be in the current circumstances.

Thank you again for inviting us to testify.

STATEMENT OF JERRY VLASAK, M.D., PRESS OFFICER, NORTH AMERICAN ANIMAL

LIBERATION PRESS OFFICE

I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Good afternoon, gentleman, my name is Dr. Jerry Vlasak. I am a practicing trauma surgeon, but more importantly for today’s purpose, I am a Press Officer with

the North American Animal Liberation Press Office. I am also a former vivisector.

The stated purpose of the Animal Liberation Press Office is: to communicate the

actions, strategies, philosophy and history of the underground animal liberation

movement to the media and the public, and that’s what I hope to do here today.

The actions of underground activists who care enough about animals to speak out

in no uncertain terms, and at times to risk their own lives and freedom, have a message that is most urgent and one that deserves to be heard and understood. Often

underground animal liberation speech and actions either go unreported in the media

or are uncritically vilified as ‘‘violent’’ or ‘‘terrorist’’, with no attention paid to the

needless and senseless suffering that industries and individuals gratuitously inflict

on animals. The Press Office seeks to clarify the motivation and nature of underground actions taken in defense of animals.

II. HLS

Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is the largest contract testing lab in Europe, and

operates facilities in the UK and New Jersey. They kill 500 animals a day. HLS

will test anything for anybody. They carry out experiments which involve poisoning

animals with household products, pesticides, drugs, herbicides, food colorings and

additives, sweeteners and genetically modified organisms, oven cleaner and make

up.

HLS has been infiltrated and exposed 5 times in recent years by journalists, animal rights campaigners and members of the public; each time evidence of animal

abuse and staff incompetence has been uncovered.

A 1999 inspection of their Occold (UK) facility by the Good Laboratory Practice

Monitoring Authority revealed 41 deficiencies, including errors in standard operating procedures, training issues, record keeping, quality assurance, equipment, labeling and facilities.

520 violations of the UK Good Laboratory Practices Act were documented in an

expose by the Daily Press (UK) in 2000. They are the only UK laboratory to ever

have their licence revoked by the government.

In East Millstone, NJ in 1997, an investigator from the People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals brought information to light that forced Huntingdon to plead

guilty to animal cruelty violations and pay a $50,000 fine.
42

III. SHAC

The campaign Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) was set up at the end

of 1999. In what has become an international campaign in more than 18 countries,

a campaign that knows no limit to the creativity and length to which many demonstrators will go, SHAC has brought HLS to the brink of financial ruin.

It is important to realize that SHAC is not one group, or hierarchical entity, but

an ideologically aligned group consisting on thousands of people who gather in various groups to protest the atrocities perpetrated by HLS. While some like SHAC

USA are incorporated, above ground non-profit organizations, who engage in legal

demonstrations, legal boycotts and legal leafleting/education of the public, other

groups are just individuals loosely knit. It is ridiculous to think that SHAC USA

and SHAC UK is one group with a top-down organization that controls all activities

worldwide.

IV. NYSE DE-LISTING

On September 7, 2005 HLS was due to begin trading on the NYSE under the

symbol LSR. Moments before trading was to begin, and with HLS executives on the

stock exchange floor to celebrate, the listing was cancelled without comment. There

was no direct or indirect reference or mention of animal rights action.

Did NYSE president Catherine Kinney halt the listing because she had just realized the financial temerity of HLS, or did she decide that a company as debased

and cruel as HLS should not be associated with her exchange?

The New York Stock Exchange’s reluctance to admit the lab is understandable,

as the company hides their financial details from public scrutiny.

Currently HLS stock still trades on the OTCBB under the symbol LSRI. It was

de-listed from the London Stock Exchange in 2002; the company reincorporated in

Maryland and underwent a reverse 5:1 stock split. It’s split-adjusted price today is

a bit under $2 per share.

Chairman of the Board and CEO Andrew Baker owns 27 percent of the stock, and

in June fronted the company another $43 million in a leaseback offer giving him

personal ownership of the company’s land, buildings and equipment, which he leases

back to them.

Even after that massive infusion of cash, HLS still reports a whopping $75.9 million debt. A $50 million bond is payable in mid 2006.

No commercial bank or insurance company is willing to do business with HLS,

and at least 25 market makers have thus far refused to deal in their stock.

HLS has not paid a dividend in many years, 2 of its directors are 3rd world-based

and have no experience in the field, and its annual shareholders meetings are held

secretly in Panama. Hundreds of customers and suppliers have cancelled their contracts with HLS, choosing not to do business with a company dealing in the torture

and killing of defenseless animals. Is this the kind of business that belongs on any

stock exchange?

In the last 2 weeks, HLS share price has gone into a downfall, as company after

company sheds their stock from their portfolios. More than a million shares have

been divested, as companies are informed about the vile business carried out by

HLS. One company, Awad, stated that had they known about the cruelty at HLS,

they probably would have never invested in them.

Oct. 20, 2005—Washington Mutual sells off 188,430 of their shares in HLS!

Oct. 19, 2005—Royce & Assoc. sell off 120,000 shares!

Oct. 19, 2005—Thomson, Horstmann & Bryant, Inc. sell off 123,500 shares!

Oct. 18, 2005—Cortina sells off their 165,000 LSRI shares!

Oct. 13, 2005—AWAD sells off their 250,000 shares in LSRI!

Oct. 12, 2005—Greenville Capital Management sells off their 251,000 shares in

LSRI!

V. ABOUT THE ANIMAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT

By their accusations against SHAC and the ALF, some are trying to disguise

where the real violence exists, and not the violence of extensional self-defense, but

the real violence, of Huntingdon laboratories. Other activists watch all this, and become embittered and frustrated until they begin utilizing more radical.

IV. CCF

When it met in May of this year to discuss ‘‘animal enterprise terrorism’’, this

committee heard from David Martosko, director of research for a lobbyist group

called Center for Consumer Freedom(CCF).
43

The Center for Consumer Freedom, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network,

was set up by one Richard Berman with a $600,000 ‘‘donation’’ from tobacco company Philip Morris. Berman arranges for large sums of corporate money to find its

way into non-profit societies of which he is the executive director. He then hires his

own company as a consultant to these nonprofit groups. Of the millions of dollars

‘‘donated’’ by Philip Morris between the years 1995 and 1998, 49 percent to 79 percent went directly to Berman or Berman & Co.

On November 16, 2004, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

(CREW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that CCF has

violated its tax exempt status. The complaint alleges that CCF engaged in prohibited electioneering, made substantial payments to the founder of the organization,

Richard Berman, and to Berman’s wholly owned for profit entity Berman & Co., and

engaged in activities with no charitable purpose. CREW executive director Melanie

Sloan told Forbes magazine, ‘‘It doesn’t seem to me that someone should get a tax

deduction while they’re writing public relations memos about how people should be

able to smoke in restaurants.’’

VII. SUMMATION

Each of the witnesses that have testified before me have their own financial interests at stake in the continued oppression, torture and murder of non-human animals by HLS.

HLS is only one representative of the Global Vivisection Complex, an outdated,

inefficient and wasteful entity whose time has come and gone. What are the major

medical breakthroughs in the areas of cancer research, HIV/AIDS treatments, Parkinson’s or other debilitating diseases has LSR’s work been at the forefront of?

According to recent opinion polls, only 13 percent of the public have confidence

or trust in the Pharmaceutical Industry, ranking amongst the likes of big tobacco,

the oil industry, and insurance companies (Harris Poll published in July of 2005).

In August of 2005, Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New

Jersey found that 67 percent of the United States would rather donate to medical

research that does not involve animal experimentation.

In the 21st century, there is absolutely no need to torture and kill non-human

animals to advance human medicine. The majority of physicians in the UK, according to a recent poll, are against animal experimentation and feel it is not necessary

for medical research. Here in the United States, there are thousands of physicians

like myself who realize there is no need to kill animals in order to help humans,

the vast majority of whom get sick and die because of preventable lifestyle variables

such as diet, smoking, drugs and environmental toxins. In a country where 45 million people do without reliable access to ANY medical care, there is no reason to

waste hundreds of millions of dollars testing drugs and procedures on non-human

animals. In a world where 20,000 children are dying from lack of access to clean

water each week world wide, there is no reason to waste hundreds of millions of

dollars testing drugs and procedures on non-human animals.

Huntingdon is the poster child for the abhorrent, unnecessary and wasteful industry that not only murders millions of innocent, suffering animals, but dooms countless humans to their own unnecessary suffering as scarce health-care dollars are

wasted on useless animal research and testing.

I thank the Committee for listening to my comments, and invite your questions.

HUNTINGDON LIFE SCIENCES (HLS)

• Largest contract testing lab in Europe

• Operates facilities in the UK and New Jersey.

• Kill 500 animals a day

• HLS will test anything for anybody.

• Carry out experiments which involve poisoning animals with household products, pesticides, drugs, herbicides, food colorings and additives, sweeteners and genetically modified organisms.

• HLS has been infiltrated and exposed 5 times in recent years by journalists,

animal rights campaigners and members of the public

• Each time horrific evidence of animal abuse and staff incompetence has been

uncovered:

workers punching beagle puppies in the face

simulating sex with animals in their care

dissecting primates while they are still alive

falsifying experiments to get their clients’ product on the market.
44

• 1999 inspection of their Occold (UK) facility by the Good Laboratory Practice

Monitoring Authority revealed 41 deficiencies, including errors in standard operating procedures, training issues, record keeping, quality assurance, equipment, labeling and facilities.

• 520 violations of the UK Good Laboratory Practices Act were documented in

an expose by the Daily Press (UK) in 2000.

• Only UK laboratory to ever have their licence revoked by the government.

• In East Millstone, NJ in 1997, an investigator from the People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals brought information to light that forced Huntingdon to plead

guilty to animal cruelty violations and pay a $50,000 fine.

• Some examples of the testing done at HLS include the following:

An estimated 12,800 animals died in the research of the sugar substitute Splenda.

HLS used pregnant rabbits, beagle dogs, and primates to test the substance, administering up to 1200 times the estimated daily intake. Thirty two beagles were used

and after weeks of having the substance pumped into them, were killed by

exsanguination—having their throats slit. The primates suffered brain defects, mood

swings, grip reflexing, severe weight loss, and then death. The rabbits experienced

convulsions, intestinal disorders, and not surprisingly trauma-induced death.

A 2003 report documented the lab carrying out an expenment on a refrigeration

component, long since banned in production, for the Japanese Refrigeration and Air

Conditioning Association. The repeated study forced 7 month old beagles to inhale

the pollutant, which caused severe head trembling, head tremors, whole body shaking, unconsciousness, and eventually death.

• Animal experimentation at Huntingdon Life Sciences is not life-saving, not

necessary, and is inherently cruel.

CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM

Front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries.

Media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates,

and environmentalists

Created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman

Berman has argued against a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) initiative

to lower the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for drivers.

Claimed that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warnings

about salmonella-related food poisoning are just ‘‘whipping up fear over food.’’

Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come

under attack from CCF.

In 1995, Berman and Norm Brinker, his former boss at Steak and Ale Restaurants, donated the $25,000 that disgraced then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich,

who was hauled before the House Ethics Committee for influence-peddling over the

money. Berman and Brinker were lobbying against raising the minimum wage.

In a 1999 interview Berman boasted that he attacks activists more aggressively

than other lobbyists. ‘‘We always have a knife in our teeth,’’ he said. Since activists

‘‘drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine,’’ his

strategy is ‘‘to shoot the messenger. . . . We’ve got to attack their credibility as

spokespersons.’’

On November 16, 2004, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

(CREW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that CCF has

violated its tax exempt status. The complaint alleges that CCF engaged in prohibited electioneering, made substantial payments to the founder of the organization,

Richard Berman, and to Berman’s wholly owned for profit entity Berman & Co., and

engaged in activities with no charitable purpose. CREW executive director Melanie

Sloan told Forbes, ‘‘It doesn’t seem to me that someone should get a tax deduction

while they’re writing public relations memos about how people should be able to

smoke in restaurants.’’

In April 2005, CCF launched a $600,000 ad campaign in such major newspapers

as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and USA Today, calling ‘‘obesity’’ a ‘‘hype’’ and stated, ‘‘Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of

obesity myths by the ‘food police,’ trial lawyers, and even our own government.’’

CENTER FOR CONSUMER FREEDOM

[From SourceWatch]

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the ‘‘Guest Choice Network’’) is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs
45

media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates,

environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them

‘‘the Nanny Culture—the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, antimeat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who ‘know what’s best for you.’ ’’

HISTORY

CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co.,

a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, DC,

Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors,

taverns, and restaurant chains.

The group actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol

level, while targeting studies on the dangers of red meat consumption, overfishing

and pesticides. Each year they give out the ‘‘nanny awards’’ to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives.

Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come

under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic

Surgeons; the American Medical Association; the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School

of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug

Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety

Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for

the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader’s group, Public Citizen; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

STARTING OFF SMOKING

Berman launched the Guest Choice Network in 1995. Its initial funding came entirely from the Philip Morris tobacco company. ‘‘I’d lke to propose to Philip Morris

the establishment of the Guest Choice Network,’’ Berman stated in a December 11,

1995 letter to Barbara Trach (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/

berman600k.pdf), PM’s senior program manager for public affairs. ‘‘The concept is

to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking,

anti-meat, etc. activists. . . . I would like to solicit Philip Morris for an initial contribution of $600,000.’’ The purpose of the Guest Choice Network, as Berman explained in a separate planning document (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/gcplan.pdf), would be to enlist operators of ‘‘restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators’’ to ‘‘support mentality of ‘smokers rights’ by encouraging responsibility to protect ‘guest choice.’ According to a year end 1995 budget (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/

budget.pdf), Guest Choice planned to spend $1.5 million during its first 13 months

of operation, including $390,000 for ‘‘membership marketing/materials development,’’ $430,000 to establish a communication center and newsletter (which Berman

promised would have a ‘‘60 percent to 70 percent smoking focus’’ (http://

www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/gcplan.pdf)), $110,000 to create a ‘‘multi-industry advisory council,’’ and $345,000 for ‘‘grassroots network development/operation.’’

The tobacco company complied with Berman’s initial funding request for $600,000

(http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/pm600k.pdf) and pitched in another

$300,000 early the following year. ‘‘As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now,’’ wrote Philip

Morris attorney Marty Barrington in an internal company memorandum dated

March 28, 1996 (http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/pm300k.pdf). Aside

from Philip Morris, there are no other publicly known funders of Guest Choice until

its public launch 2 years later, in April 1998, sporting an advisory board comprised

mostly of representatives from the restaurant, meat and alcoholic beverage industries.

QUOTABLE AND NOTABLE EVENTS

In a 1999 interview with the Chain Leader, a trade publication for restaurant

chains, Berman boasted that he attacks activists more aggressively than other lobbyists. ‘‘We always have a knife in our teeth,’’ he said. Since activists ‘‘drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine,’’ his strategy is

‘‘to shoot the messenger. . . . We’ve got to attack their credibility as spokespersons.’’
46

In November 2001, the Guest Choice Network launched a separate web site,

ActivistCash.com, which purports to expose the ‘‘hidden funding’’ of various activist

groups that support animal rights, food safety and smoking prevention.

In January 2002 the Guest Choice Network renamed itself the Center for Consumer Freedom.

On November 16, 2004, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

(CREW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that CCF has

violated its tax exempt status. The complaint alleges that CCF engaged in prohibited electioneering, made substantial payments to the founder of the organization,

Richard Berman, and to Berman’s wholly owned for profit entity Berman & Co., and

engaged in activities with no charitable purpose. CREW executive director Melanie

Sloan told Forbes, ‘‘It doesn’t seem to me that someone should get a tax deduction

while they’re writing public relations memos about how people should be able to

smoke in restaurants.’’ 1 (http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/09/23/obesity-lobbying-ccf-czsl0923ccfhtml). The full text of CREW’s complaint is available online.2 (http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/20041116/)

CAMPAIGN TIMELINE

In early 2002, CCF ran national radio ads targeting studies on the link between

food consumption and health. One ad referred to ‘‘red-faced picketers wielding pointed wooden sticks with signs that read ‘eat tofu or die’ on the way to your classic

cheeseburger and fries.’’

In a May 11, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle article, CCF spokesman John Doyle

responded to questions about nationwide radio ads put out by the group. He said

the ads were meant to attract people to their website and ‘‘draw attention to our

enemies: just about every consumer and environmental group, chef, legislator or

doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops

or antibiotic use in beef and poultry.’’ 3 (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/

chronicle/a12002/05/11/MN119037.DTL)

In April 2005, following a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study

that ‘‘obesity accounts for 25,814 deaths a year in the United States’’—in contrast

to earlier CDC studies suggesting 365,000 annual obesity-related deaths4 (http://

edition.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/04/20/obesity.deaths.ap/)—CCF

launched a $600,000 ad campaign. The ad, run in such major newspapers as the

New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and USA Today, called ‘‘obesity’’ a ‘‘hype’’ and stated, ‘‘Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of obesity

myths by the ‘food police,’ trial lawyers, and even our own government.’’ 5 (http:/

/www.consumerfreedom.com/advertisementsdetail.cfm/ad/30) CCF’s Mike Burita

said the ad campaign was part of their ‘‘putting pressure on the leadership of the

CDC, who has still not endorsed this new figure’’ for obesity-related deaths. Claiming that CCF wanted ‘‘some perspective,’’ Burita added, ‘‘Obesity is certainly a genuine problem. But when genuine problems become political issues they tend to become exaggerated, as this has.’’ 6 (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7633701/)

A September 2005 Forbes article describes ads CCF ran in its ‘‘anti-anti-obesity’’

campaign:7 (http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/09/23/obesity-lobbying-ccfczsl0923ccf.html)

In one ad, Seinfeld ‘‘Soup Nazi’’ character actor Larry Thomas plays a chef who

weighs customers, then barks ‘‘salad!’’ or ‘‘no food for you’’ depending on how far

they push the scale. In another, heavy-handed ‘‘food police’’ rip an ice cream cone

away from a whimpering kid, whack a beer from a man about to enjoy a sip and

snuff out a hot dog on the ground.

The article also mentions PetaKillsAnimals.com, another CCF campaign against

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and continues:

But Berman has already moved onto his next topic: scares about mercury levels

in fish. He’ll soon be adding FishScam.com to a growing collection of Web sites that

includes AnimalScam, CSPIscam and ActivistCash, which exposes the financing behind do-gooder groups and lefty celebrities.8 (http://www. forbes.com/business/

2005/09/23/obesity-lobbying-ccf-czsl0923ccf.html)

PERSONNEL

CCF is registered as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. The IRS Form 990 filed

for the the 6-month period from July to December 1999 by CCF (then calling itself

the Guest Choice Network), listed the following officers:

• Richard Berman, executive director.

• Ray Kraftson, director

• Dixie L. Berman, secretary/treasurer
47

• Dan Popeo, director (Popeo is also chairman of the Washington Legal Foundation, a corporate-funded right-wing think tank which paid him $301,593 in salary

and benefits in 2000.) • Allison Whitesides, director (Whitesides has also worked as a public relations

representative for Coca-Cola North America and Outback Steakhouse. In November 2001, she went to work as a legislative representative for the National Restaurant Association.)

The CCF also has an advisory panel. In 1998 it included the following individuals:

• Dave Albright, National Steak & Poultry • Jane Inns, Perkins Family Restaurants, L.P. • Steve Bartlett, Meridian Products Corporation • Robert Basham, Outback Steakhouse, Inc. • John F. Berglund, Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association • Lou Chatey, Sebastiani Vineyards • H.A. ‘‘Andy’’ Divine, University of Denver • Timothy J. Doke, Brinker International, Inc. • Richard Fisher, Tetley USA, Inc. • William L. Hyde, Jr., Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse • James Spector, Philip Morris, USA • Michael Middleton, Cargill Processed Meat Products • Daniel J. Popeo, Washington Legal Foundation

• Richard G. Scalise, Armour Swift-Eckrich

• Daniel Timm, the Bruss Company

• Carl Vogt, Fulbright & Jaworski

• Richard Walsh, Darden Restaurants, Inc.

• Terry Wheatley, Sutter Home Winery

In addition to these officers, several Berman & Co. employees and associates have

appeared in news stories as CCF representatives:

• Mike Burita has worked for a variety of conservative causes, including Republican election campaigns, Phyllis Schlafly, Frontiers of Freedom, and Brent

Bozell’s Media Research Center.

• John Doyle, communications director for Berman & Co., also doubles as a spokesman for the CCF, the Employment Policies Institute and the American Beverage

Institute.

• On February 24, 2000, the Washington Post reported that Tom Lauria, ‘‘who

helped peddle the tobacco industry’s message at the Tobacco Institute before the

lobby group was dismantled last year as part of an agreement with the states,’’

had been hired as director of communications for CCF (then named the Guest

Choice Network). Lauria left Berman’s employ sometime in 2001.

• David Martosko has been described in news stories as CCF’s director of research.

AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS

In addition to the Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman & Co. sponsors several

other organizations and web sites, including the Employment Policies Institute

(which fights to keep the minimum wage low and opposes mandatory health insurance for workers), and the American Beverage Institute, which opposes restrictions

on drinking and driving.

FUNDING

CCF is registered as tax-exempt nonprofit organization and is required to disclose

some financial information to the Internal Revenue Service which is publicly available by inspecting their IRS Form 990s. Like Berman’s other front groups, it does

not disclose the identity of its funders, but some information about it has become

publicly available thanks to the 1998 attorney generals’ settlement with the tobacco

industry, which required tobacco companies to release millions of pages of previously secret company documents.

CCF claims to represent ‘‘more than 30,000 U.S. restaurants and tavern operators.’’ However, the IRS Form 990 which it filed for the the 6-month period from

July to December 1999 (under the name of ‘‘Guest Choice Network’’) shows that almost all of its financial support came from a handful of anonymous sources. Its total

income for that period was $111,642, of which $105,000 came from six unnamed donors. It received no income from membership dues. Some of its funding apparently

came from one of Berman’s other organizations, the American Beverage Institute,

which ‘‘contributes monthly amounts to the Guest Choice Network to assist with

media expenses.’’ The Guest Choice Network did not report paying salaries to any

of its employees, who were presumably paid by Berman & Co.
48

1Teitelbaum, S. (2002, Nov. 22) Science. 298:1515.

CCF’s Form 990 for the year 2000 showed total income of $514,321, almost all

of which ($492,500) came from seven unnamed donors. Once again, it received no

income from membership dues and did not report paying salaries to any employees.

However, it did list $256,077 in compensation paid to Berman and Co., Inc., for

‘‘management services.’’

Like other Berman & Co. front groups, CCF is headquartered at the following address: Email: rberman@new-reality.com; website: www.consumerfreedom.com

STATEMENT OF BRUCE R. BISTRIAN, M.D., PH.D., PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF

AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY (FASEB)

The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of our 23 scientific society

members, representing more than 65,000 biomedical research scientists. Furthermore, FASEB gratefully acknowledges the leadership role of Chairman James

Inhofe in highlighting the detrimental consequences of animal rights (AR) extremism. We feel strongly that the decision by the New York Stock Exchange to halt

the scheduled listing of the parent company of Huntington Life Sciences, in apparent response to pressure from AR extremists, sets a dangerous precedent that jeopardizes our progress in medical research and the quest for new therapies to treat

and cure disease.

The use of animal models in biomedical research is absolutely essential to our

ability to develop treatments and cures for those suffering from debilitating diseases. Breakthroughs in treatments for diabetes, heart disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS

and Parkinson’s disease would not have been possible without the use of animals.

Moreover, animal research directly benefits animals themselves: the majority of veterinary advances are a direct result of research involving animal models.

Members of the FASEB Societies believe that the use of animals in research and

education is a privilege. This imposes a major responsibility to provide for their

proper care, ethical and humane treatment. Good animal care and good science go

hand-in-hand and is taken most seriously by the scientific community. In addition,

FASEB feels that it is a responsibility of researchers to communicate to the public

about the role and importance of animals in research, a task made difficult due to

the dangers posed by members of AR extremist groups.

The recent escalation in violence and intimidation campaigns by AR extremists

directed towards researchers and their institutions is of great New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), and its apparent capitulation to the AR extremist group, Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC), biomedical researchers are often the focus of campaigns launched by groups like SHAC or the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). We

would like to take this opportunity to put a human face on researchers whose lives

have come under siege. These are scientists who have dedicated decades of their life

in an effort to alleviate human suffering and improve human health. Moreover,

these incidences are often widely reported when they take place and are counted

as victories by the AR extremist movement.

In the November 22, 2002 edition of Science magazine,1 then FASEB President

Steven Teitelbaum, MD, published an Op-Ed in response to the ongoing situation

of Michael Podell, DVM. Dr. Michael Podell was an Associate Professor in the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences and Center for Retrovirus Research, College of Veterinary Medicine at the Ohio State University (OSU). He studied the effect of methamphetamine abuse on the progression of immunodeficiency virus,

known in humans as HIV, the causative agent of AIDS, as well as the neurological

effects of HIV, a poorly understood aspect of the disease. Podell’s investigation involved the use of feline models, because his previous research had discovered that

feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) closely mirrors the neurodegenerative effects of

HIV infection in humans, making cats an excellent surrogate for HIV

neuropathology. This research was uncovering tantalizing new evidence about the

effects of methamphetamine use on viral replication. Podell’s findings, published in

the Journal of NeuroVirology, plainly showed a manifold increase in neural cells’

ability to replicate FIV after methamphetamine treatment. The OSU study also

shed light on the mechanism by which FIV associates with astrocytes, mutating into

a strain of virus that does not depend on immune system interaction for replication.

This important piece in the puzzle of how the viral load of FIV/HIV in the brain

leads to dementia is vital to efforts to lessen this debilitating brain damage. However, before these findings were published, Dr. Podell abandoned his research, walk-
49

2Davis, S. (2002, August 1) DVM Newsmagazine. 3Stolberg, SG (2002, July 23) New York Times. P. Al

4 Bhattacharya, S. (2004, April 22) The New Scientist. Retrieved 2005, Oct. 25 from: http:/

/www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4913 5McElfresh, A. (2004, Jan. 30) The Reveille (LSU). Retrieved 2005, Oct. 25 from: http://

www.lsureveille.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/01/30/4019fdcbb1286 6Smallwood, S. (2005, Aug. 5) The Chronicle of Higher Education. 51(48). P. A8.

7 Animal Liberation Front. Retrieved 2005, Oct. 25 from: http://

www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-USA/LSURatLib05.htm

ing away from a $1.68 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH),

the sort of funding only one in five researchers might successfully apply for.

Why did Michael Podell, a promising and successful scientist who was contributing invaluable knowledge to the fight against AIDS, leave his career as a research

scientist? From the awarding of the grant in October, 2000, Dr. Podell, his family,

and Ohio State University were subjected to an intense and often violent campaign

of harassment. According to interviews with Dr. Podell,2 he received thousands of

harassing emails and a dozen death threats. The university itself was subjected to

repeated acts of vandalism. Ultimately, it was concern for the safety of his family,

who were also being threatened, that played a large part in convincing Michael

Podell to leave. In one threatening letter they received, a newspaper picture of a

United Kingdom scientist whose car had been bombed by AR extremists was

scrawled with the message ‘‘You’re next.’’3

Sadly, this is not an uncommon story: throughout the US and UK, law-abiding

biomedical researchers are being targeted. Although these groups have sought cover

under the fact that no U.S. researcher has been physically harmed or directly targeted for physical violence, this is not true in the UK. Human targets of groups like

SHAC and ALF in Europe have been beaten, branded, attacked with caustic substances, and firebombed.4 The roots of the U.S. movement of AR extremism are in

the UK. FASEB feels it is only a matter of time before these domestic campaigns

escalate to the violent intensity of their UK counterparts. We fear that the NYSE’s

action will embolden these groups to increase their violent efforts to halt the use

of animals in research.

Research institutions, funded in large part by taxpayer dollars, are also victims

of AR extremism. In the last hearing on this topic held by this committee, you examined the damage done during the November, 2004 attack at the University of

Iowa, which caused $450,000 worth of damage to laboratories and equipment.

Again, this is not an uncommon story: Louisiana State University (LSU) in Baton

Rouge was spared the wrath of Hurricane Katrina, but has been attacked multiple

times by ALF,5 most recently in April, 2005.6 On ALF’s website, where the attack

against LSU is triumphantly detailed, there is an ominous message to researchers,

‘‘Stop now, or be stopped.’’ 7 Money that could be going towards life-saving medical

research is now being spent on increased security and cleaning up the damage

caused by AR extremists.

But the monetary damages done to laboratories and research institutions, (documented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Southern Poverty Law Center,

the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the

Foundation for Biomedical Research), do not fully convey the impact of direct actions by ALF and SHAC. The loss of computer files, lab animals, research notebooks

or microscope slides may not account for a great monetary loss, but could represent

years of work in the life of a scientist or graduate student. Imagine working long

hours on a small stipend, following your heart’s passion through the sometimes frustrating process of bench research for five years, trying to achieve a doctoral degree,

only to have all of that work eliminated in one night by a group whose public

website describes in great detail exactly how to attack and harm research laboratories. The human toll of having one’s research lab targeted by AR extremists is described eloquently in a Washington Post editorial (July 17, 2005) written by Dr.

Mark Blumberg, a researcher at the University of Iowa, which we have attached.

Animal rights extremists have become a serious impediment to the progress of

biomedical research, as well as to the peace of mind of scientists themselves. FASEB

understands that the committee is addressing the broader topic of eco-terrorism, of

which AR extremism is only one part. However, we urge the committee to carefully

examine the toll of AR extremism on the scientific community and our medical research enterprise, the results of which are an insidious stifling effect on the discovery of new cures for diseases. Biomedical researchers are dedicated to improving

the health, well-being and productivity of all people. They should be allowed to do

so in safety and security. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony and

for shedding light on this critical issue. FASEB stands ready to assist in any way

possible.
50

[From the Washington Post, Sunday, July 17, 2005]

THE ANIMAL ZEALOTRY THAT DESTROYED OUR LAB

[By Mark S. Blumberg]

55IOWA CITY, IOWA.—‘‘Are you lying down?’’ my wife asked me over the phone. It

was Sunday, Nov. 14 of last year, and I was just waking up in my hotel room in

Madison, Wis., where I’d gone to visit my sister and her son for the weekend. My

wife’s question—especially her urgent tone—triggered a cascade of sickening

thoughts. Soon, I was racing home to Iowa.

Although the pieces only came together over the next several days, the bare facts

were these: Early that morning, at least five individuals had illegally entered the

research facility at the University of Iowa where my colleagues and I, all professors

of psychology and neuroscience, work. The intruders broke into offices and laboratories, dumped acid and other chemicals and destroyed equipment. They also ‘‘liberated’’ the animals—primarily rats and mice—used in our studies of such basic behavioral and biological processes as learning, memory, temperature regulation and

sleep. One of my graduate students arrived at work early that morning and discovered, in bold red spray paint, the slogans that are the hallmark of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF): ‘‘Science not sadism’’ and ‘‘Free the animals.’’

With this break-in, my department had become the latest poster child of the animal rights movement. After years of escalating attacks on research facilities in the

United Kingdom, animal rights and environmental extremists have turned to North

America, which is fast becoming a breeding ground for their type of violence. But

because the number of individuals affected is still relatively small, most Americans

remain unaware of the seriousness of the threats. As my experience shows, even

among decision-makers, few are taking it seriously enough.

The care of laboratory animals isn’t, as some seem to believe, an unregulated

field. As scientists engaged in government-sponsored research, we must conform to

an exhaustive array of local, state and federal rules. Nor are we unthinking about

these animals’ use. As scientists, we debate it among ourselves and with others, as

all thoughtful individuals do when dealing with issues of life and death. What happened in Iowa, though, was not a debate; it was an assault.

For us, the break-in set off a chain of events that one might expect after an attack

of such magnitude. Our unassuming buildings at the edge of campus were cordoned

off as local, state and then federal law enforcement personnel descended. With the

closing of these buildings, the daily lives of hundreds of faculty, staff and students

were disrupted. Experts in the handling of hazardous materials spent weeks identifying and removing the corrosive chemicals that had been dumped inside.

The cost of the cleanup, replacement of valuable equipment and purchasing of

new animals totaled in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Contrary to initial reports, relatively little data were lost (in part because the attackers seemed more

concerned with smashing computers than erasing hard drives) although even small

losses can have far-reaching consequences for research.

Instead, it was the human cost that was most devastating. Imagine the horror of

walking into your office at work, as one of my young colleagues did, to find computers, books and personal effects (such as ultrasound images of your unborn child)

soaked in acid. Then, imagine having to don a chemical protection suit for several

days and sift through multiple 55-gallon drums filled with acid-soaked papers,

photocopying those that are still readable as they crumble in your hand.

Unfortunately, the attack on the building is where our story begins, not ends. For

what followed was a series of well-orchestrated harassments. First came the e-mailing of a communique to the media, detailing the crime and the rationale for targeting our facility and the individuals who work there. Each of us was singled out

for derision; I was colorfully described as having a ‘‘famously deranged mind’’ because of my research on the similarities between the high-pitched squeals of infant

rats and the life-sustaining grunts of human preemies in respiratory distress.

Some of ALF’s statements produced the desired chilling effect: ‘‘Let this message

be clear to all who victimize the innocent,’’ the e-mail read. ‘‘We’re watching. And

by axe, drill, or crowbar—we’re coming though your door. Stop or be stopped.’’ Later

in that document, the brazen and indiscriminate nature of their threat was revealed

when, after noting ‘‘the established link between violence towards animals and that

towards humans,’’ they listed ‘‘as a public safety measure’’ our names, our spouse’s

names, home addresses and phone numbers, as well as information about our students.

Next came the video. Several days after the communique, local journalists informed a group of us that a surreptitious delivery had brought a 50-minute videotape of the crime. Would we be interested in seeing it? Within an hour, two col-
51

leagues and I found ourselves huddled together in front of a small television set in

a local newsroom, watching in dismay as these individuals—clearly youthful despite

being hidden behind hoods, masks and gloves—paraded through our facility, smashing delicate instruments with oversize hammers and transferring rats and mice to

plastic cages. It was particularly difficult for me to watch as my infant rats, along

with their mothers, were thrown together with several other adults, knowing (as

these animal ‘‘liberators’’ apparently did not) that cannibalism of the young was the

likely outcome. There was no video of that.

In the weeks thereafter, our attackers and their allies kept up their campaign.

There were press conferences by local agitators, freedom of information requests,

midnight phone calls, a well-publicized visit by a nationally known pro-ALF speaker

whose message was that more attacks were needed. And then came the magazines.

They started as a trickle, but soon my mailbox was deluged with dozens catering

to every taste: Canoe & Kayak, Guns & Ammo, Fit Pregnancy, Muscle Mustangs

& Fast Fords. It’s simple but ingenious: tear out those little subscription cards,

apply a label, and send it in. No hassle, no mess. In total, nearly 450 subscriptions

were directed at us, 160 to me alone. Funny? Perhaps, unless you consider how you

would respond to such an onslaught, including the invoices and, ultimately, the

credit agencies that followed.

When we learned that a Senate panel would be addressing the issue of animal

rights extremism in May, we thought that some relief was imminent. Groups like

the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League have been keeping

an eye on the growing violence. Critics have pointed out financial donations, overlapping personnel and supportive public statements that raise questions about a

possible relationship between above-ground groups such as People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals (PETA) and fringe groups like ALF. We hoped that such evidence had accumulated to the point that a concerted and bipartisan effort might finally affect their formidable fundraising apparatus. We were sadly disappointed.

We were encouraged that the president of our university had been called as a witness and that our experiences of the past several months would receive some highlevel attention. Unfortunately, the hearing quickly devolved into a partisan disagreement. Incredibly, the senators seemed more interested in protecting their favored activist groups from scrutiny than in determining which groups actually posed

significant threats to the lives and livelihoods of law-abiding citizens. Most galling

were the comments of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, who

seemed miffed that his time was being wasted on such fluff. Incredulous of the testimony provided by the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), in which violent animal rights and environmental extremists were identified as among our most serious domestic terrorism threats, Lautenberg asked facetiously who the next target would be: ‘‘Right to Life? Sierra Club?’’ Then, he

inexplicably proclaimed himself ‘‘a tree hugger.’’

I later made several attempts to contact Lautenberg about his comments, via fax,

phone and e-mail, but never received a response.

I was a victim of a violent crime once before. While on break from college in the

early 1980s, I was sitting in my parents’ home in Chevy Chase reading a book

when, suddenly, I looked up and found myself staring into the barrels of two snubnosed revolvers. The intruders tied me up and robbed the house, then left silently.

As traumatic as that event was, its effect on me was fleeting. I was angry, yes, but

I did not feel terrorized. These home invaders clearly did not hate me for who I was

or what I did. They did not issue a communique declaring that others should attack

me. They did not release a video to force me to relive the indignity of the event.

And they did not encourage their minions to engage in further harassments. Terrorists, no matter what their cause, seek political change through violence and intimidation. Is it essential that we label animal rights extremists as terrorists? Perhaps

not, unless such a label helps us—and especially politicians—to better appreciate

the seriousness of the threat and to marshal the necessary law enforcement resources.

Because the threat is serious. Today, scientists, clinicians and educators find

themselves engaged in a seemingly endless string of pitched battles: over the teaching of intelligent design in our public school classrooms, over the availability of stem

cells to treat degenerative diseases, over the rights of severely brain-damaged individuals to die. If we focus on the conventional politics that drive these conflicts—

right vs. left—we miss the bigger picture.

In fact, what ties all of them together is a common distrust of and disdain for

science, for empirically based medicine, for the value of evidence and critical analysis, and for progress in a free and open society. Moreover, and perhaps most alarming, is the adoption by certain groups of increasingly violent action to achieve their

political aims. Indeed, the mounting acceptance of intimidation and violence within
52

the anti-abortion movement eerily parallels the escalating tactics of animal rights

extremists. Thus, the ideology and goals of these groups may align at opposite ends

of the political spectrum, but their tactics have converged. As we know, a number

of abortion doctors have already been killed, and some animal rights extremists

seem to approve of physical violence as a tactic. It’s only a matter of time before

someone takes the next step. Whom will Lautenberg hug then?
53
54
55
56
57
58
59

OCT. 25, 2005.

Hon. JAMES M. INHOFE, Chairman,

Committee on Environment and Public Works,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. RUSSELL J. FEINGOLD,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATORS INHOFE AND FEINGOLD: Thank you very much for holding the

hearing tomorrow on the terrorist tactics of the animal rights extremist group

SHAC. I attended the May 18 EPW hearing along with my colleagues from the National Association for Biomedical Research and am extremely grateful for the attention this matter is getting. My job is very difficult because, as public information

and outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, I

would like to be more open with the public; but there is increasing animal rights

terrorism out there and we don’t want to make ourselves more vulnerable to it.

Our society needs to condemn these terrorists and anyone who encourages their

acts of violence through Internet chat room rhetoric, recruiting people to the cause

who would later break the law, and harassing, threatening or attacking third party

supporters such as stockholders and their families. SHAC and other animal rights

extremist groups and individuals have been getting away with too much for too

long. The spokespeople for these terrorists say the perpetrators do not harm people;

but I strongly disagree. There are many more ways to harm a person other than

to cause physical injury, as I detailed to you, Senator Inhofe, in my June 6, 2005,

letter after the May hearing.

Yesterday, the police contacted me personally, and told me that my family and

I are now a planned target of animal rights extremists. Thus, I am now forced to

take further security precautions, for reasons that I have been asked to keep confidential at this time. Please help us pass the necessary laws in this country to

bring tougher surveillance and penalties upon those who conspire to intimidate and

threaten law-abiding citizens engaged in or financially supporting life-saving and

humane biomedical and veterinary research.

I express my utmost thanks to you and the EPW committee for holding these

hearings and for your continued dedication and support for protecting the staff, animals and facilities of centers such as the Primate Center where I work.

In addition, I thank you, Senators Feingold and Inhofe, for your dedication to

maintaining our clean water and air in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and the United

States. My previous job, for many years, was in the Bureau of Water Resources

Management at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. My family is dedicated to preserving wetlands, storm water runoff ponds and other critical natural

zones in the West Bend area through the Cedar Lakes Conservation Foundation.

Thank you for your great track records on the environment.

Sincerely,

JORDANA LENON.
60
61

SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION,

Washington, DC, October 25, 2005.

TO ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: On behalf of the animal welfare community, we

affirm our commitment to non-violent methods to improve the lives of animals. As

Mahatma Ghandi said, ‘‘Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.’’ We support direct action within the confines of the law to promote

the protection of animals, and we strive to operate within a framework of common

ethics.

Our belief is that good animal care is in everyone’s interest. Respecting those with

differing opinions, we inform the public about animal-related causes—and most importantly, we seek to relieve the avoidable pain and distress suffered by any species.

While our community is diverse, we aim to work together to accomplish a variety

of goals on behalf of the animals. By raising awareness, we believe we can advance

animal welfare standards around the world. The humane treatment of animals is

a key step toward creating a more peaceful society.

Sincerely,

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

ANIMAL CARE AND WELFARE/SPCA.

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE.

SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE

LEGISLATION.
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73Æ