PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 9, 2010
Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against depictions of animal cruelty to prohibit anyone from knowingly creating an animal crush video if: (1) such person intends or has reason to know that such video will be distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce; or (2) such video is distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce. Prohibits the sale, marketing, exchange, or distribution of such videos in interstate or foreign commerce.
Defines "animal crush video" as any photograph, motion picture, film, video or digital recording, or electronic image that: (1) depicts actual conduct in which one or more living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury; and (2) is obscene.
Extends the applicability of this Act to a person selling, marketing, advertising, exchanging, distributing, or creating animal crush videos outside the United States if: (1) such person intends or has reason to know that the animal crush video will be transported into the United States or its territories or possessions; or (2) the video is so transported. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to seven years for violations of this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Exempts from the application of this Act: (1) any visual depiction of customary and normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices, the slaughter of animals for food, or hunting, trapping, or fishing; and (2) good faith distribution of an animal crush video to a law enforcement agency or a third party for the sole purpose of determining if referral to a law enforcement agency is appropriate.
Provides for compliance of the budgetary effects of this Act with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
People & committees
Rep. Gallegly, Elton [R-CA-24] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-294.
Became Public Law No: 111-294.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Senate agreed to the House amendment to Senate amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8202-8204; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR S8202-8203)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to the House amendment to Senate amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8202-8204; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR S8202-8203)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate amendment.
House agreed to Senate amendment with amendment pursuant to H. Res. 1712. (consideration: CR H7403-7405; text as House agreed to Senate amendment with an amendment: CR H7403-7404)
Resolving differences -- House actions: House agreed to Senate amendment with amendment pursuant to H. Res. 1712.(consideration: CR H7403-7405; text as House agreed to Senate amendment with an amendment: CR H7403-7404)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S7653-7654)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 416 - 3 (Roll no. 459). (text: 7/20/2010 CR H5788-5789)
House roll call 459 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 416 - 3 (Roll no. 459).(text: 7/20/2010 CR H5788-5789)
House roll call 459 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5892-5893)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5566.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5788-5791)
Mr. Scott (VA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 314.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-549.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-549.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5566 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5566 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5566 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5566 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.