PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 15, 2005
Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit: (1) sponsoring or exhibiting a bird in a fighting venture in a State where it would not otherwise be in violation of the law, only if the person knew that any bird in the venture was knowingly bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or foreign commerce for such purpose; or (2) knowingly sponsoring or exhibiting in an animal fighting venture any other animal that was moved in interstate or foreign commerce.
Prohibits knowingly: (1) selling, buying, transporting, delivering, or receiving, for purposes of transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal to participate in an animal fighting venture; (2) using interstate mail service for commercial speech promoting an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the States (with an exception for bird fights in States whose laws allow them); or (3) selling, buying, transporting, or delivering in interstate or foreign commerce a knife, gaff, or other sharp instrument to be attached to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture.
Increases the penalties to a fine and up to two years' imprisonment for violations.
People & committees
Rep. Green, Mark [R-WI-8] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 15, 2025. 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.817 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.817 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.817 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.817 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.