S.3880
One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and six, an Act to provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act'.
SECTION 2. INCLUSION OF ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO ANIMAL ENTERPRISES AND THREATS OF DEATH AND SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO ASSOCIATED PERSONS.
In General-- Section 43 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
Section. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises
(a) Offense--Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--
(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and
(2) in connection with such purpose--
(A) Intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;
(B) Intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or
(C) Conspires or attempts to do so; shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b)
(b) Penalties--The punishment for a violation of section (a) or an attempt or conspiracy to violate subsection (a) shall be--
(1) A fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both, if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and--
(A) The offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or
(B) The offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000;
(2) A fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if no bodily injury occurs and--
(A) The offense results in economic damage exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000; or
(B) The offense instills in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death;
(3) A fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
(A) The offense results in economic damage exceeding $100,000; or
(B) The offense results in substantial bodily injury to another individual;
(4) A fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if--
(A) The offense results in serious bodily injury to another individual; or
(B) The offense results in economic damage exceeding $1,000,000; and
(5) Imprisonment for life or for any terms of years, a fine under this title, or both, if the offense results in death of another individual.
(c) Restitution--An order of restitution under section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution--
(1) For the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense;
(2) For the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense; and
(3) For any other economic damage, including any losses or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting from the offense.
(d) Definitions--As used in this section--
(1) The term `animal enterprise' means--
(A) A commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
(B) A zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or
(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;
(2) the term `course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose;
(3) the term `economic damage'--
(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but
(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;
(4) the term `serious bodily injury' means--
(A) injury posing a substantial risk of death;
(B) extreme physical pain;
(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
(D) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
(5) the term `substantial bodily injury' means--
(A) deep cuts and serious burns or abrasions;
(B) short-term or nonobvious disfigurement;
(C) fractured or dislocated bones, or torn members of the body;
(D) significant physical pain;
(E) illness;
(F) short-term loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or
(G) any other significant injury to the body.
(e) Rules of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed--
(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or
(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The item relating to section 43 in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006. The law was pushed through Congress by wealthy biomedical & agri-business industry groups such as the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition (AEPC), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), with bipartisan support from legislators like Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative James Sensenbrenner. The new law replaced its predecessor, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA), which had become law in 1992.
The AEPA was put on the books in 1992 by well-funded industries that exploit animals. Proponents of the AEPA argued that the number of violent attacks committed by so-called animal rights extremists on farming and research facilities was escalating, and that the AEPA was necessary to protect these facilities. They claimed that (1) existing state & federal laws had failed to curtail such acts, and (2) these attacks disrupted vital services relied on by millions of Americans. Despite these assertions, the language of the AEPA swept up constitutionally-protected free speech activities, even though legislators believed they had struck a balance between the right to protest and the need to provide additional criminal penalties for violent acts. Despite the claims of the corporate interests that this law was vital, the law has only been used twice during the last 16 years.
Fast forward to 2006, the proponents of the AETA repeated these same arguments again in support of this new law. Citing some recent activities, the proponents asserted that existing law had not provided a sufficient deterrent, and that animal rights extremists were using new tactics such as making threats and targeting anyone affiliated with animal enterprises. Therefore, the federal law had to be expanded to address such acts. Yet in actuality, the language of the AETA covers many First Amendment activities, such as picketing, boycotts and undercover investigations if they “interfere” with an animal enterprise by causing a loss of profits. So in effect, The AETA silences the peaceful and lawful protest activities of animal and environmental advocates.
AETA supporters claim the bill contains language to protect free speech activities. In fact, some Democratic legislators mistakenly came out in favor of the AETA because of its supposed First Amendment protections. For example, Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported the bill because he believed it had been amended to remove penalties for nonviolent activities as well as actions that might cause a loss of profits. Representative Scott, the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, asserted that the AETA excluded First Amendment activity and acts of peaceful civil disobedience in announcing his support of the bill.
In late September 2006, the bill was introduced and amended in the Senate by Senators Feinstein and Inhofe, and was passed out of the Senate by Unanimous Consent. Once on the House side, Representative Sensenbrenner placed the bill on suspension calendar, propelling the bill to the House Floor. Representative Dennis Kucinich was the only member who opposed the AETA in the room, arguing that it was inappropriate to vote out the bill in this manner. Speaking out against the bill on its merits, he emphasized that:
Existing federal laws are adequate;
The bill created a special class of crimes for a specific type of protest, and;
Such a broad terrorist label will chill free speech. He also urged Congress to pay more attention to the issues raised by the millions of Americans concerned about the humane treatment of animals, and to consider legislation in response to those concerns.
Yet the bill was pushed through late at night, with inadequate notice, and with only a fraction of Congresspersons present to vote on it.
