CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
HOUSE
PAGE H6609
July 14, 2003
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2004
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BLUMENAUER
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Under the heading “AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND
FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS”, insert after the
dollar amount on page 5, line 1, the following:
“(reduced by $800,000)”.
Under the heading “OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL”, insert after the dollar amount on page 7,
line 18, the following: “(increased by $800,000)”.
Mr. BLUMENAUER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this
amendment this afternoon together with the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to provide $800,000 for
improved enforcement for the Federal animal fighting
law. It is not just enough to fight a law, Mr.
Chairman. It must be enforced.
[Page H6636]
In May, 160 Representatives and Senators requested
this $800,000 increase for animal fighting enforcement
in letters to the Committee on Appropriation´s
Subcommittee on Agriculture. The broad, bipartisan
support reflects our constituents´ concern for
meaningful enforcement of the Federal animal fighting
law.
Fifty-five State and local sheriff´s offices,
State police departments from around the country,
including Kansas, my home State of Oregon, Colorado,
Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others,
have called on Congress to provide this money so that
USDA will improve its enforcement for the animal
fighting law and have a stronger partner in their
efforts.
The increase we seek in our amendment would be
offset by a cut of $800,000 in the agricultural
building and facilities and rental payments account,
only one-half of 1 percent, leaving over $156 million.
Mr. Chairman, in the 27 years since Congress first
prohibited most interstate and foreign commerce of
animals for fighting, USDA has pursued only a handful
of cases, despite receiving a steady stream of tips
from informants and requests for State and local
police on illegal movement of fighting dogs and birds
across State lines.
I was pleased to have the support of so many of
our colleagues last year in enacting provisions to the
farm bill to close loopholes in the Federal animal
fighting law. Now it time to ensure that the USDA
take seriously its responsibilities and has the
resources to enforce the law.
The amendment would provide the $800,000 for the
Office of Inspector General to focus on animal
fighting cases, working closely with State local
law enforcement personnel to complement their efforts.
While dogfighting is banned in all 50 States and
cockfighting is banned in 48 States, the Federal
Government must be involved, for participants in
animal fights often come together from several States
at a time and animals are moved across State lines.
This not some innocent pastime.
and cockfighting are barbaric activities in which
animals are given drugs to make them hyper-aggressive
and drugs to clot their blood more quickly so they can
continue fighting. They are pushed by their handlers
to fight even after they grievous
injuries, such as pierced lungs and gouged eyes.
Dogfights and cockfights not only are deplorable
animal abuse, but they are integrally involved with
illegal gambling, drug traffic and violence to people
who participate in these activities.
It is well documented that animal fighters often
bring their children to these spectacles, sending a
terrible message to them about animal cruelty and
violence. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait
for training their dogs. Some abandon fighting
animals, leaving them to roam neighborhoods and wreak
havoc. Any dog bred and trained to fight poses a
public safety risk.
. Chairman, in October of 2002, the Exotic
Newcastle Disease began spreading rapidly across the
Southwest United States. Exotic Newcastle Disease is a
highly contagious viral disease that affects
respiratory, digestive and nervous systems of all
birds. This outbreak cost taxpayers upwards of $100
million in containment and compensation fees, and it
is very probable the outbreak originated from
cockfighting birds imported from Mexico.
to the State Veterinarian and Director
of Animal Health and Food Services in California, game
fowl and their owners have played a major role in
dissemination of this virus due to their high
mobility related to meetings, training, breeding and
fighting activities on a regular basis.
The Texas Poultry Federation takes a similar
position in its letter, stating that, cockfighting has
spread Exotic Newcastle Disease as their birds travel
extensively and come in close contact at fights. It
makes no sense to allow illegal cockfighting
operations to continue, putting our flocks and
livelihood at risk.
Mr. Chairman, surely spending $800,000 to crack
down on animal fighting a smart investment to
help prevent
of costly future diseases,
especially when a significant portion of the
eradication expenses the Federal Government has
already incurred in the recent outbreak, $11.5
million, according to USDA records, went to compensate
owners of birds believed to be illegal fighting cocks.
[] 1300
Why let this illegal industry continue to thrive
unchecked?
Animal fighting is no longer simply an animal
welfare issue, it is an epidemic that is costing
taxpayers millions of dollars, threatening our food
supply, and destroying the hard work of American
farmers. It promotes illegal gambling and drug
activities and puts the public at risk. I urge my
colleagues to vote in support of
amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is not a Member of this body
that does not believe in treating animals humanely.
However, I oppose this amendment for several reasons:
First, the $800,000 that would go to the Inspector
General would go to dogfighting and cockfighting
enforcement, and it would cut buildings and facilities
funding for rent and maintenance that are already
underfunded.
The Inspector General´s office has told us that
enforcement of this will be done at a minimal level
since this is a misdemeanor offense. Now, one could
argue the pluses and minuses on whether it should be a
more serious offense, but these are misdemeanors that
are dealt with by local law enforcement agencies from
around the country, and they cannot afford to devote
their resources at the IG level because of this
reason. The IG tells us that one case alone could cost
$800,000.
Second, one of the reasons that
debating this amendment today is that the Humane
of the United States points out that this
vote will be counted
year. The only reason that this item is even on
their scorecard is that we have addressed all other of
their concerns in this bill. We provided a $437,000
increase for animal welfare, $1.1 million more for
regulatory enforcement in the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, and fully funded the enforcement
of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act in the Food
Safety and Inspection Service.
If the sponsors of this amendment were serious
about this, programs that the HSUS supported like the
ones that I just mentioned are the ones that would be
cut to pay for this amendment, but then that would
force them to prioritize like the rest of us have to
do.
If every Member of the House brought an amendment
to the floor just because they did not get every last
nickel that they wanted, we would be here all day and
we could never get this bill done.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not
vote against this amendment simply because I am
suggesting
, but vote against this
amendment because of the following statement by an
HSUS Vice
said, “The life of an ant
and that of any child should be granted equal
.”
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment. The amendment
to improve enforcement of the Animal
Welfare Act.
I think that when we recognize that so many
Americans are concerned about animal abuse, we look at
this as being one of the most egregious areas where
dogfighting and cockfighting takes place. As the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) pointed out, it
is not only a matter of animal abuse, it is a matter
of illegal gambling, drug trafficking, and violence
against other people. Violence breeds violence. I
think that this amendment, in seeking to bring an
appropriate Federal role through funding through the
Inspector General, would help the local communities
understand that a Federal focus means that more
attention needs to be paid to as
well.
As somebody who served in municipal government
over the years, this is
came up in
terms of activities that were taking place in some of
the neighborhoods in my own community, and certainly
people who heard about them and who were involved in
the community understood that the level of violence
and the level of animal cruelty was something that
needed public attention.
[Page H6637]
We should have no tolerance for animal cruelty. We
should have no tolerance for a system which degrades
these creatures of God. And we also need to understand
that, as the honorable chairman pointed out, the
observation that was made official
concerning the of and children, I do
not think that he actually meant to equate the
importance of an ant to a child, but what the
statement meant to say was that all life here ought to
be regarded with some degree of respect and that, in
effect, when we try to come forward here and support
animal welfare and support the rights of animals to
not be treated cruelly, what we are doing here is, in
effect, elevating our own humanity.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just
respond very briefly to two points of the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
What he describes with the notion of this being a
misdemeanor is part of the catch-22 that some of the
people in this Congress who are fronting for the
illegal fighting animal activities have produced for
us. When we had an amendment on the floor that was
approved in the farm bill last year, it was to
increase the penalties so that it would be easier to
pursue. But, sadly, in conference, contrary to the
will of the House, these provisions were watered down.
So now we can plead, well, it is only a misdemeanor so
we should involved with it.
The fact is, as I mentioned in my statement, 55
local jurisdictions and State jurisdictions in law
enforcement have asked us to come forward, because
while these provisions may be misdemeanors, they are
tied up in a network of illegal activity that breeds
violence, drug, and other activities and is serious.
It is not just animal cruelty, if somebody wants to
dismiss that.
Second, the gentleman´s argument that we cannot
afford it I think is a false economy. First of all, I
am taking from an account that they have already
significantly reduced. It is an area that would
already have $156 million. We are only speaking of
one-half of 1 percent, but the $800,000 here has the
opportunity to prevent vast losses to the Federal
Government.
As I pointed out, Exotic Newcastle Disease and all
the evidence suggests it is illegal game-fighting that
has spread it throughout the Southwest. That is the
conclusion from the gentleman´s home State of Texas,
from California, and has cost us upwards of $100
million that we have had to spend tracking these down,
eradicating poultry and other birds and compensating
people, including $11.5 million for what are probably
illegal fighting cocks.
I would suggest that the gentleman, with all due
respect, is not being responsive to the overall
economic impact, and it is not simply that we just
dismiss as something not worthy of more law
enforcement attention. It does not get the attention
because the interests that are sympathetic to animal
fighting, illegal animal fighting, have deliberately
fought to have strong enforcement provisions. The
least we can do, the least we can do is provide the
resources within the extent of the existing law to cut
it back, stop the illegal activity, and prevent the
waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer
money.
. . Mr. Chairman, I to strike
the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I wanted to say that I think the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer) has a very worthy amendment here. I
was particularly struck by one of his arguments: the
linkage between crime and the mistreatment of animals
and the increasing spread of Exotic Newcastle Disease
across our country which, by the way, also has a cost.
It comes to us in the form of trying to remediate and
to make whole those whose flocks have been devastated.
I do not think that it is widely known that, as the
gentleman mentioned, some of the animals might have
come in from another country. We know how poorly our
borders are inspected.
So I want to commend the gentleman for taking the
offset for his amendment from the buildings accounts,
as opposed to from our research accounts or our animal
plant health inspection accounts, or our border
inspections, et cetera. I think that the matter is
that the people who are doing this are doing it
illegally; and now there is a linkage to the spread of
disease, serious disease.
I think that the gentleman´s amendment is very
reasonable. He is asking for $800,000 for the Office
of the Inspector General who, when they are given the
authority, do a great job, to try to remedy this
animal fighting across our country and, I think
importantly, to stem any disease that may spread as a
result of it.
So I just wanted the speak on behalf of the
gentleman´s amendment and to thank him for the
responsible manner in which he has found an offset to
try to find the funds for the Inspector General.
I might say, one of the bad things about the way
the laws concerning the Inspector General have been
written, even if wrongdoers are found and fines are
levied, under the laws of our country the Inspector
General has to return those funds to the Department of
Treasury. It does not go to the Department of
Agriculture for further prosecution and further
investigation. I have never liked that aspect of the
law, because I think we ought to reward the Inspectors
General that are doing a good job in apprehending
wrongdoers across this country.
So I want to thank the gentleman for his very
appropriate amendment here, and I urge my colleagues
for their support.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, attached is a letter
signed by 122 members requesting this $800,000
increase, as well as a letter of support from the
Humane Society of the United States.