09/30/99 Committee on the Judiciary

Summary of Testimony on H.R. 1887

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime

Ms. Loretta Swit

September 30, 1999

_ Testifying today on behalf of Actors and Others for Animals, the Doris Day Animal League, the American Humane Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States and the Society for Protective Animal Legislation, collectively representing 7,932,400 members and supporters.1

_ Commends Congressman Elton for his leadership in introducing H.R. 1887. Supports the bill, which removes the financial incentive to produce films (and other depictions) that capitalize on acts that violate existing state anti-cruelty statutes. Bill is a "win-win" situation for prosecutors and animal advocates alike, without compromising individual expression.

_ One look at these videos clearly demonstrates there is no society value condoning this kind of cruelty. In all my years of work, I have never witnessed anything approaching the cruelty depicted in these so-called "crush" videos. The sustained and deliberate torture of any sentient being is unacceptable. And the purposeful production of such cruelty, for money, is mind-boggling.

_ If we as a nation are serious about diminishing violence in our communities and in our films, on our televisions, on the Internet and other creative media, we must recognize that violence is violence, no matter who the victim. When violence, in any form, is not addressed and rectified, we send a message that it is acceptable. It is not. The violence depicted in "crush" videos is against the law and Congress should ensure that it is prosecutable.

1 The American Humane Association also represents 6,500 animal care and control agencies.

Testimony of Ms. Loretta Swit on H.R. 1887

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime

September 30, 1999

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I want to say thank you especially to Congressman Elton Gallegly for his leadership in introducing this legislation; bringing to light a disturbing industry that benefits from acts of animal cruelty.

I am testifying today on behalf of Actors and Others for Animals, the Doris Day Animal League, the American Humane Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States and the Society for Protective Animal Legislation, collectively representing 7,932,400 members and supporters.1 As a long-time member of the creative arts community, I can attest that one look at these videos clearly demonstrates there is no society value condoning this kind of cruelty. In all my years of work, I have never witnessed anything approaching the cruelty depicted in these so-called "crush" videos. The sustained and deliberate torture of any sentient being is unacceptable. And the purposeful production of such cruelty, for money, is mind-boggling.

There is increasing evidence of the link between violence to animals and violence to humans. This connection has been examined by an array of individuals, both past and present. Noted American anthropologist Margaret Mead cautioned child therapists to "...watch for any record of killing or torturing a living thing." Special Agent Alan Brantley, currently serving in the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, finds animal abuse "prominently displayed in the histories of people who are habitually violent."

If we as a nation are serious about diminishing violence in our communities and in our films, on our televisions, on the Internet and other creative media, we must recognize that violence is violence, no matter who the victim. When violence, in any form, is not addressed and rectified, we send a message that it is acceptable. It is not. The violence depicted in "crush" videos is against the law and we should ensure that it is prosecutable. We cannot afford to give violence a "stamp of approval" by remaining silent. If we do, where will it lead? We know that continuous exposure to violence desensitizes us to the suffering of others. Is a "crush" video featuring a human infant really so hard to imagine?

I don't pretend to understand what would compel an individual to willingly participate in a "crush" video. But I do understand that if someone thinks he or she can make money from doing something, even if it's illegal, they will. This is really what we're talking about here: the production, with intent to sell, of films that demand the intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding and killing of living animals. As you have seen from the video clip, there is no question that the animal was alive, was tortured, and was eventually killed in a way that violates anti-cruelty laws.

The intentional cruelty in these films clearly violates state laws. Congress can help the states enforce these laws by eliminating the financial incentive to produce these films. The intent of Congressman Gallegly's bill is simple: remove the financial incentive to produce these types of videos. Congressman Gallegly, his staff and legislative counsel have taken great care to focus this intent as narrowly as possible.

I believe this bill can be a "win-win" situation for prosecutors and animal advocates alike, without compromising individual expression. Capitalizing on acts that violate existing state anti-cruelty statutes simply does not connote expression in any form. These films should not be the legacy we leave to future generations. Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." I urge the members of the Subcommittee to favorably report H.R. 1887 to the full Judiciary Committee. Thank you, again, for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(4), neither Ms. Loretta Swit, nor any of the groups on whose behalf she is testifying receive any federal grants, contracts or subcontracts.

1 The American Humane Association also represents 6,500 animal care and control agencies.