[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 100 (Tuesday, June 17, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5417-H5421]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAPTIVE PRIMATE SAFETY ACT
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2964) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to treat
nonhuman primates as prohibited wildlife species under that Act, to
make corrections in the provisions relating to captive wildlife
offenses under that Act, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2964
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 ``Captive Primate Safety
Act''.
SEC. 2. ADDITION OF NONHUMAN PRIMATES TO DEFINITION OF
PROHIBITED WILDLIFE SPECIES.
Section 2(g) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C.
3371(g)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end
``or any nonhuman primate''.
SEC. 3. CAPTIVE WILDLIFE AMENDMENTS.
(a) Prohibited Acts.--Section 3 of the Lacey Act Amendments
of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3372) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``; or'' and
inserting a semicolon; and
(iii) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or subsection (e)''
before the period; and
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) respectively;
(B) by striking ``(e)'' and all that follows through
``Subsection (a)(2)(C) does not apply'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(e) Captive Wildlife Offense.--
``(1) In general.--It is unlawful for any person to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in
interstate or foreign commerce any live animal of any
prohibited wildlife species.
``(2) Limitation on application.--This subsection--
``(A) does not apply to a person transporting a nonhuman
primate to or from a veterinarian who is licensed to practice
veterinary medicine within the United States, solely for the
purpose of providing veterinary care to the nonhuman primate,
if--
``(i) the person transporting the nonhuman primate carries
written documentation issued by the veterinarian, including
the appointment date and location;
``(ii) the nonhuman primate is transported in a secure
enclosure appropriate for that species of primate;
``(iii) the nonhuman primate has no contact with any other
animals or members of the public, other than the veterinarian
and other authorized medical personnel providing veterinary
care; and
``(iv) such transportation and provision of veterinary care
is in accordance with all otherwise applicable State and
local laws, regulations, permits, and health certificates;
``(B) does not apply to a person transporting a nonhuman
primate to a legally designated caregiver for the nonhuman
primate as a result of the death of the preceding owner of
the nonhuman primate, if--
``(i) the person transporting the nonhuman primate is
carrying legal documentation to support the need for
transporting the nonhuman primate to the legally designated
caregiver;
``(ii) the nonhuman primate is transported in a secure
enclosure appropriate for the species;
``(iii) the nonhuman primate has no contact with any other
animals or members of the public while being transported to
the legally designated caregiver; and
``(iv) all applicable State and local restrictions on such
transport, and all applicable State and local requirements
for permits or health certificates, are complied with; and
``(C) does not apply'';
(C) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(i) by striking ``a'' before ``prohibited'' and inserting
``any'';
(ii) by striking ``(3)'' and inserting ``(4)''; and
(iii) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(3)'';
(D) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(i) in subparagraph (C)--
(I) in clauses (ii) and (iii), by striking ``animals listed
in section 2(g)'' each place it appears and inserting
``prohibited wildlife species''; and
(II) in clause (iv), by striking ``animals'' and inserting
``prohibited wildlife species''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``animal'' each place
it appears and inserting ``prohibited wildlife species'';
(E) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)),
by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(3)'';
(F) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)),
by striking ``subsection (a)(2)(C)'' and inserting ``this
subsection''; and
(G) by inserting after paragraph (6) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (A)) the following:
``(7) Application.--This subsection shall apply beginning
on the effective date of regulations promulgated under this
subsection.''.
(b) Civil Penalties.--Section 4(a) of the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3373(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(e),'' after
``subsections (b), (d),'' ; and
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, (e),'' after
``subsection (d)''.
(c) Criminal Penalties.--Section 4(d) of the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3373(d)) is amended--
[[Page H5418]]
(1) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) and in the first
sentence of paragraph (2), by inserting ``(e),'' after
``subsections (b), (d),'' each place it appears; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, (e),'' after
``subsection (d)''.
SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY PROVISION AMENDMENT.
Section 3 of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (117 Stat.
2871; Public Law 108-191) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) In General.--
Section 3'' and inserting ``Section 3''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b).
SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.
Section 7(a) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C.
3376(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) The Secretary shall, in consultation with other
relevant Federal and State agencies, issue regulations to
implement section 3(e).''.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
In addition to such other amounts as are authorized to
carry out the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et
seq.), there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 to
hire additional law enforcement personnel of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce that Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam.
General Leave
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Guam?
There was no objection.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 2964, the Captive Primate Safety Act, was introduced by our
colleague from Texas, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. This bill
amends the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to prohibit the import, export,
transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase in interstate
or foreign commerce of nonhuman primates.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 17, 2008--On Page H5418 the following appeared: . . . This
bill amends the Lacy Act Amendments . . . This legislation would
amend the Lacy Act to make it . . .
The online version should be corrected to read: . . . This bill
amends the Lacey Act Amendments . . . This legislation would amend
the Lacey Act to make it . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
Although the importation of nonhuman primates into the United States
for the pet trade has been banned by Federal regulation since 1975 due
to health concerns, these animals are readily available for purchase on
the Internet and from exotic animal dealers. While some States already
prohibit the possession of these animals as pets, there remains an
active trade in these animals.
Nonhuman primates may pose serious risks to public health and safety.
They can transmit diseases and inflict serious physical harm. In
addition, most people cannot provide the special care, housing, diet
and enrichment that these animals require. Interstate transport
increases these risks to both humans and primates. Conversely,
decreasing commerce in nonhuman primates, as H.R. 2964 would do, limits
interactions and diminishes risks.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that late last week there were some
concerns raised about the effect of the bill on nonhuman primates that
serve as assistance animals for individuals with spinal cord injuries.
We have committed to work to carefully address that very narrow issue
in a way that does not create unintended loopholes in the prohibitions
established by the bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask Members on both sides to support
passage of this noncontroversial bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield myself such time as
I may consume and I would like to raise a few issues that give me
pause.
As a matter of full disclosure, neither I nor any member of my family
own a pet capuchin, a howler or a spider monkey. However, I admit that
I'm not particularly fond of those annoying rally monkeys that seem to
show up during the American League baseball playoffs.
This legislation would amend the Lacey Act to make it a Federal crime
to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase a
nonhuman primate pet in either interstate or foreign commerce. This
measure contains the distressing trend of federalizing yet another
issue that clearly falls under the jurisdiction of State fish and
wildlife agencies. In fact, more than 40 States already either prohibit
the ownership of monkeys or require a license or permit to own them.
It also begs the question of why is there an overriding need for this
legislation? According to the proponents, nonhuman primates attack
people and spread deadly diseases. Yet there have only been 132
documented incidents over a 10-year period where nonhuman primates have
injured a human primate. Of these incidents, 80 involved primate pets,
not covered by this bill, or less than eight attacks per year. By
contrast, man's best friend sends more than 100,000 people to the
hospital each year, not to mention the numerous romps in the yard
ruined by the discovery of a substance left by the neighbor's
schizophrenic canine friend.
Furthermore, we heard testimony before our committee that there is no
documentation of pet primates being a threat to public safety. In fact,
there have been no instances where a captive nonhuman primate pet has
caused a disease transmission or human death. While I am not a betting
man, the chances of being bitten by a pet nonhuman primate in this
country appears to be about one in 38 million.
Since this is hardly a public safety issue, I wish to address this
body--or direct this body if there are any Members of the body actually
here--to the cost of this legislation. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, it will cost $4 million a year for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, who opposed this bill, to hire additional staff to
conduct inspections and investigations to enforce this act. On a per
incident basis, this represents about a half million dollars in U.S.
public taxpayer money per bite. At that rate, I hope I can apply for
the job.
At a time when our national debt is approaching a staggering $9
trillion, certainly it is legitimate to ask whether this is a wise use
of taxpayer money, especially in light of the fact that the States have
been and are quite capable of regulating the nonhuman primate pet trade
now and in the future. Maybe we should actually spend more of our time
with the human primates' energy issues instead of the nonhuman primate
pet trade nonissue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time and
would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional
speakers.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I do have a few other speakers.
Ms. BORDALLO. In that case, then, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will yield as much time as the lady wishes to
consume to the gentlelady from the State of North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Utah for yielding.
I agree with my colleague from Utah that we ought to be dealing with
things that are important to the American people, and it seems to me
that this bill is not something that is high on the agenda of most
Americans. What is high on the agenda of most Americans is the cost of
gas and oil in this country. The Democratic leadership simply is
refusing to deal with it and deal with it in a realistic manner.
I think it's very important that we point out the history of our
having dealt with these issues over the years and what Republicans have
tried to do. Let me talk about the issues of supply and demand. We have
tried and tried to increase the supply of fuel oil and gasoline in this
country for many years. Let me tell you how we have voted on this
issue:
On ANWR exploration, House Republicans, 91 percent of us, have
supported that. Eighty-six percent of House Democrats have opposed it.
Consistently Democrats have voted against creating more supply by
drilling in ANWR, a place about the size of a postage stamp on a
football field as the size of ANWR is to the State of Alaska.
How about coal-to-liquid. There are many ways that we can help our
energy situation in this country. The Democrats say we can't drill our
way out of it. Well, there are lots of ways that we could get the
resources we need. We have supported the issue of turning coal into
liquid fuel for a long, long time. Ninety-seven percent of Republicans
have supported it. Seventy-eight percent of Democrats have opposed it.
How about exploring oil shale. Ninety percent of Republicans have
supported that issue. Eighty-six percent of
[[Page H5419]]
Democrats have opposed it. It is no wonder that we are having problems
with supply of energy resources in this country when we have had almost
all Democrats opposing it over the years.
How about drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. Eighty-one percent
of House Republicans have supported it. Eighty-three percent of House
Democrats have opposed it.
How about increasing refinery capacity in this country, which is an
issue in terms of providing the supply we need. Ninety-seven percent of
House Republicans have supported increasing refinery capacity. Ninety-
six percent of House Democrats have opposed it.
Just so people know, we have validated these statistics by going back
and counting the actual votes on these issues over the years.
So here is the summary: Ninety-one percent on average of House
Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of
American-made oil and gas. We do have the capability in this country to
become energy independent. But 86 percent of House Democrats have
historically voted against increasing the production of American-made
oil and gas. They obviously want us to remain dependent on foreign oil.
It is something I simply cannot understand. They seem to want the
American people to suffer. They and their radical environmentalist
friends don't want us to do anything to increase the supply of oil and
gas. Republicans do want to increase the supply of oil and gas, and the
facts prove it out.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend for yielding.
I found some of the facts today pretty interesting about this monkey
bill, this monkey business, Mr. Speaker. I've only been in Congress 4
years, I was in the State legislature 12 years, and I've never had a
call about a monkey bite or monkey bites being rampant in my district.
I'm sure that it's important. As my friend from Utah stated, don't be
real alarmed that your Congress has brought this front and center, the
first bill on the floor today in the House of Representatives. You can
take comfort, because only one in 38 million, that's your chances of
getting bit by a monkey today.
{time} 1430
Now your chances are pretty good if you are driving a gasoline-
powered car, when you pull into the service station, you are going to
pay about $4.08 for gas. Now that's for sure. We need to be
concentrating on that pain that you're feeling, not the pain of a
monkey bite, but the pain at the gas pump that you're feeling.
And, you know, we're going to spend, as my friend from Utah said, a
half million dollars per monkey bite in this country. Those are
expensive monkey bites. Not only are they rare, and that may be the
reason they're so expensive is they are so rare; but we could be
spending that money towards drilling, towards exploring our own natural
resources.
That's the reason I came up with a petition. I heard about all of
these petitions on the Internet about where American citizens could go
and sign a petition to let Congress know how they felt about high
energy prices. And I thought, you know, why don't you come up with a
petition that the Members of Congress can sign to let the people of
America know how their Representative feels about the commonsense issue
of providing our own resources.
So we came up with the American Energy Solutions for Lower Gas
Prices, bring onshore oil online, bring deep water oil online, and
bring new refineries online. And just to make it special, I made every
Member of Congress a separate line on the petition. And what the
petition says is: I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower
gas prices for Americans. And there are two pens on it. So I am going
to invite everyone to sign it.
Mr. Speaker, today when we vote on the monkey bite bill, there will
probably be a little over 400 Members, probably around 410 or 412, that
will vote on the monkey bite, and I would hope that we would have that
many signatures on this petition. There are 435 slots over here for
people who have the ability and under the Constitution to vote on this
floor, have an opportunity to sign that petition to let their
constituents know that they are for commonsense energy practices.
You know, the keyword today, Mr. Speaker, in all of the campaigns you
hear about is change. I think Americans do want change. I think our
voters do want change. I don't know if it is the radical, rock-your-
world, turn-everything-upside-down change that some of the candidates
are talking about, but I think it is this kind of change, I think it is
a change for honesty. I think the American people want to know where
their Member or their elected official stands on the issues. And we
make them so complicated that every Member of this body can go home and
give a good reason why they voted for or against something. This
simplifies it so the American people can see the honesty in their
Member that says yes, I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to
lower gas prices for Americans. That's simple.
The other thing they want is common sense. They want common sense.
Common sense, Mr. Speaker, is to use our own natural resources rather
than going into other countries in the world hat in hand begging for
their natural resources. That's not common sense. It is not common
sense to be in this body passing a law today about monkey bites when
you have a 1 in 38 million chance of getting bit. Or that it is going
to cost a half a million dollars per bite, that's not the kind of
common sense, that's not the kind of change that American people are
looking at.
What they're looking at is the commonsense change of us getting out
of fetal position in this body, Mr. Speaker, and doing something to
lower the price, to lower the pain for them at the gas pump, not reduce
the pain from monkey bites.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, people indeed are being bit by monkeys, and they
are also being bit at the gas pumps. I would just like to note a few
statistics regarding monkey risks to the public.
In June of 2008 in New York, a 22-month-old girl playing in her
backyard put her fingers through a fence into a neighbor's yard and was
bitten by their pet monkey. Doctors spent 12 hours trying to reattach
her finger.
In March 2008 in Indiana, a child visiting a home was bitten by a pet
capuchin monkey.
In February 2008 in Arizona, a 3-year-old boy was bitten by a pet
lemur his family just got 2 weeks before.
In February 2008 in Washington, a pet monkey escaped from a home and
bit three people.
In December 2007 in North Carolina, a clerk at a convenience store
was bitten by a customer's pet monkey.
In September 2007 in Missouri, two children were bitten by a pet
monkey at a park. The woman who owned the monkey ran off with the
animal.
In August 2007 in Wisconsin, a woman was bitten by a pet monkey a man
had on a leash.
In April 2007 in Mississippi, a Federal agent approached a home and
was attacked by a monkey.
Mr. Speaker, from January 2007 right here on my list until March
2005, there are nine other listed cases. So yes, people are being
bitten by monkeys.
And this is how they are getting bitten at the pumps. Currently oil
and gas companies hold leases on nearly 68 million acres of Federal
land both on shore and under OCS waters that they are not, I say that
they are not developing. That is roughly the size of the State of
Colorado. That 68 million acres of leased but stockpiled, inactive
Federal oil and gas lands could produce an additional 4.8 million
barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas every day. I
would point out that would nearly double total U.S. oil production and
increase natural gas production by 75 percent.
Let me reiterate that if drilling took place on the 68 million acres
of Federal lands currently under lease to oil and gas companies, an
area the size of Colorado, we would nearly double total domestic oil
production. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by one-third and it
would be more than six times the estimated peak production from the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So that is where the problem lies, the
industry is simply not using what it already has.
[[Page H5420]]
And one must wonder, is this done on purpose? Is it being done to keep
supply off the market in order to keep record-level prices and world-
record profits?
Let me remind my colleagues that the number of Federal onshore
drilling permits has exploded in recent years. Between 1999 and 2007,
the Interior Department increased the number of those permits it issued
by 361 percent. I would also note that of all the oil and gas believed
to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82 percent of the natural gas
and 79 percent of the oil is located in areas that are currently open
to leasing.
So the gentleman is correct, we have a problem here; but the solution
is to prompt the holders of these valuable energy leases to develop
them. The chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Nick Rahall,
has put forth a solution, drill it or lose it.
The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 would compel
oil and gas companies to either produce or give up Federal onshore and
OCS leases that they are stockpiling by barring the companies from
obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are
producing oil and gas or are diligently developing the leases they
already hold during the initial term of the leases.
Companies could avoid this new lease prohibition by relinquishing
their non-producing leases, creating an opportunity for another company
to explore for and perhaps produce oil or gas from them. Under the
bill, the terms of leases which are in production or which can
demonstrate diligent development are extended. Companies which lease
Federal coal resources are by law required to diligently develop these
leases. This requirement has discouraged the rampant speculation that
once existed in the Federal coal leasing program, the same type of
speculation that now appears to be plaguing the Federal oil and gas
leasing program.
So I say, let's set the Big Oil monkey off the people's backs; drill
it or lose it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield additional time to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend from Utah.
I want to just address a couple of things that have been brought up;
use it or lose it, drill it or lose it. That is already the law. That's
already the law.
We have 68 million acres out of 2.5 billion. Now we talked about
common sense, at least I talked about common sense, about what we are
doing here. And, I'm sorry, I didn't have time to write down all of the
dog bites. I noticed we were quoting all of the monkey bites. But what
I will tell you as far as common sense goes, if you were an exploration
company, if you were an oil company, would you drill where you knew
that there was no oil? I would say no. But evidently the majority, the
Democrats, believe that because you have 68 million acres of land, that
you need to drill on it. Although 54 percent, 54 percent of the holes
that were put in the ground for exploration between 2002 and 2007 were
dry. So would you continue drilling on that 68 million acres out of 2.5
billion acres? I don't think so. I think that the American people with
common sense would say, you know what, if there isn't oil there, why
would you drill?
Do you go to the hardware store to buy groceries? I don't think the
average American goes down to the hardware store looking for Quaker
oats. He goes to a grocery store.
And so if you are going to be drilling for oil, the commonsense thing
is that you would want to drill where oil is at.
We know how many barrels are under ANWR. We know how many barrels of
shale, a trillion barrels of shale in the western United States, enough
oil in ANWR to last us 50 years at the rate of what Saudi Arabia
produces. So there is some common sense, and there is truth that there
is 68 million acres leased. But the truth of it is half of the
exploratory holes have been dry, so why would you want to continue to
drill.
We need to open up new oil reserves and we need to make this to where
companies want to go and explore for oil. We need to use our common
sense and say we are not going to be dependent any longer on foreign
oil in foreign places and foreign resources. Let's use our own
resources. We have the technology to do it. We can do it in an
environmentally safe way.
But it is time that the majority of this country is quit being held
hostage at the gas pump for gas over $4 a gallon by a small, radical
environmental group that is controlling the majority party in this
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will bring some energy legislation to
this floor rather than the monkey bite bill.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman stated that if you were an
oil company, would you drill where there is no oil; of course not. And
that is not the situation. The oil companies bid on these Federal
leases. They pay for them because they believe there is oil on this
acreage. The oil companies are paying rental fees on these leases. Why,
because they believe they hold oil. Drill it or lose it.
I do have another comment on the gentleman's comments that he made
earlier.
Mr. Speaker, monkeys do pose a disease risk. Some monkeys used as
pets often carry the deadly Herpes B virus, and the CDC concludes that
makaks are unsuitable as pets because of this health risk.
And the gentleman mentioned dog bites. Of course there are more dog
bites, Mr. Speaker, there are 75 million dogs in the United States, but
only 10,000 to 15,000 monkeys.
{time} 1445
But every monkey bite causes unnecessary disease risk to those who
are bitten.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think I am ready to finish out here.
One of the problems that we have had over the past is an effort, as
we try to look at energy independence, is to find some kind of
scapegoat, someone whom to blame, usually a corporation. The reality is
that is not what we should be doing. What we should be doing is finding
commonsense solutions to the problem.
Oil companies already are putting billions of dollars into research,
but for every one of those holes that are drilled, there is always a
delaying concept that sometimes will last between 7 and 10 years for
environmental engineering studies, permitting, and then even comes the
litigation and the regulation on top of that.
The bottom line is still, on our offshore coast, 85 percent and
onshore 67 percent of all our land is permanently locked away where
there is no way of getting to the resource assets that are there.
That's the reality of what's taking place.
May I also address this bill specifically as well. The gentlelady
from Guam has given seven examples of situations and problems with
nonhuman primates, monkey bites. Unfortunately, every situation that
was given was already covered in existing law, and the bill before us
would in no way cover any of those situations.
This deals simply with transportation. It doesn't deal with the
situations that were brought up. Once again, this bill does not fit the
examples that have been brought up as to why the bill should be there.
The bottom line is still the Department of the Interior is opposing
this bill because they say it is new enforcement mandates. They're
enforcement mandates in areas they have not been historically
responsible because their area is in the area of wilderness and
wildlife conservation. This does not meet it.
And indeed, the Interior Department once again said that this bill is
coverage that is duplicative of existing laws. And that's one of the
reasons why we have a problem with this particular bill, in an area to
try to expand what we're doing in an area which ought not be expanded
because local governments and States have a better way and can easily,
easily solve this particular problem without the extra expense to the
national taxpayer.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that a bill that was
approved by the Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent is
suddenly objectionable to the minority. But I urge Members to support
it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Congressional Friends of
Animals Caucus, I
[[Page H5421]]
rise in support of H.R. 2964, the Captive Primate Safety Act, which
prohibits the sale of nonhuman primates such as chimpanzees, monkeys,
and lemurs.
I am concerned about both the public health and animal welfare
implications of nonhuman primate ownership, which this legislation
addresses. For example, nonhuman primates can spread disease and
inflict serious injury on their owners. They require a special diet and
large habitats, two things most pet owners are unable to provide,
particularly as these animals grow in size and strength.
Federal health regulations currently prohibit importing primates into
the U.S. as pets, and many States prohibit pet ownership of primates as
well. In spite of this, an estimated 15,000 primates are owned by
private individuals, and are available for purchase around the country.
The bottom line is, the average pet owner does not have the ability
to properly care for these animals and, because of this, both they and
their pets are at risk.
It is appropriate we protect nonhuman primates, man's closest animal
relative, by prohibiting pet ownership of this kind. I strongly support
adoption of H.R. 2964.
Ms. BORDALLO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2964, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________