[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 31 (Monday, February 23, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H1616-H1622]
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. 80) 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.

[[Page H1617]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 80

       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;
       ``(C) does not apply to a person transporting a nonhuman 
     primate solely for the purpose of assisting an individual who 
     is permanently disabled with a severe mobility impairment, 
     if--
       ``(i) the nonhuman primate is a single animal of the genus 
     Cebus;
       ``(ii) the nonhuman primate was obtained from, and trained 
     at, a licensed nonprofit organization described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 the nonprofit 
     tax status of which was obtained--

       ``(I) before July 18, 2008; and
       ``(II) on the basis that the mission of the organization is 
     to improve the quality of life of severely mobility-impaired 
     individuals;

       ``(iii) the person transporting the nonhuman primate is a 
     specially trained employee or agent of a nonprofit 
     organization described in clause (ii) that is transporting 
     the nonhuman primate to or from a designated individual who 
     is permanently disabled with a severe mobility impairment, or 
     to or from a licensed foster care home providing specialty 
     training of the nonhuman primate solely for purposes of 
     assisting an individual who is permanently disabled with 
     severe mobility impairment;
       ``(iv) the person transporting the nonhuman primate carries 
     documentation from the applicable nonprofit organization that 
     includes the name of the designated individual referred to in 
     clause (iii);
       ``(v) the nonhuman primate is transported in a secure 
     enclosure that is appropriate for that species;
       ``(vi) the nonhuman primate has no contact with any animal 
     or member of the public, other than the designated individual 
     referred to in clause (iii); and
       ``(vii) the transportation of the nonhuman primate is in 
     compliance with--

       ``(I) all applicable State and local restrictions regarding 
     the transport; and
       ``(II) all applicable State and local requirements 
     regarding permits or health certificates; and

       ``(D) 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)''; and
       (F) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (A))--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (a)(2)(C)'' and inserting 
     ``this subsection''; and
       (ii) by striking ``2004 through 2008'' and inserting ``2010 
     through 2014''.
       (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--
       (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)''.
       (d) Effective Date; Regulations.--
       (1) Effective date.--Subsections (a) through (c) shall take 
     effect on the earlier of--
       (A) the date of the issuance of regulations under paragraph 
     (2); or
       (B) the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph 
     (2).
       (2) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Interior shall issue 
     regulations implementing the amendments made by this section 
     by not later than the end of the 180-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     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. AUTHORIZATIONS 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 2010 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 (Ms. Bordallo).


                             General Leave

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
exclude 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.
  The pending measure, the Captive Primate Safety Act, was introduced 
by our colleague from Oregon, Representative Earl Blumenauer. 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 such as monkeys and chimpanzees.
  One week ago today, in Stamford, Connecticut, a 200-pound chimpanzee

[[Page H1618]]

went berserk and viciously attacked a family friend he had known for 
years. The injuries this chimpanzee inflicted on a 55-year-old woman 
were described as horrendous, including multiple broken bones, loss of 
limbs, and mutilation. According to a press report, the police called 
the attack ``lengthy and vicious.'' In trying to save her friend, the 
chimpanzee's owner stabbed him repeatedly with a kitchen knife and also 
tried hitting him with a shovel. In the end, police were forced to 
shoot the animal. Today, our thoughts and prayers go out to Ms. Charla 
Nash, the victim of this attack.
  While nonhuman primates may seem cuddly and harmless to some, last 
week's tragedy reminds us all too clearly that they are wild animals 
and that they can become extremely dangerous.
  Although the importation into the United States of nonhuman primates 
for the pet trade has been banned since 1975, and some States already 
prohibit their possession as pets, these animals are readily available 
for domestic purchase on the Internet and from exotic animal dealers.
  We will never know, Mr. Speaker, what triggered last week's attack, 
but what we do know is that it is not unique. The Humane Society of the 
United States estimates about 15,000 monkeys and other primates are in 
private hands in the United States, and in recent years, there have 
been dozens of incidents of nonhuman primates injuring people. 
Fortunately, few were as tragic as the incident in Connecticut. By 
prohibiting interstate commerce in and transport of nonhuman primates, 
the pending measure limits the opportunity for people to acquire these 
wild animals as pets and diminishes the likelihood that another 
horrific incident like we saw in Connecticut will occur.
  This bill passed the House during the last Congress but was not acted 
upon by the other body. So today, we are renewing our call for action.
  And with that, I ask Members on both sides to support passage of this 
very timely legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This time, I do rise in opposition to H.R. 80, known as the so-called 
``monkey bite bill,'' which we discussed again last time.
  Just to clear the deck and make sure that everything is up front, I 
own no monkeys. I am annoyed by rally monkeys at ALCS series games. 
Other than that, there is no personal interest here. But it is amazing, 
at a time when we are suffering economic pain--in fact, I find it 
somewhat incomprehensible that we are again debating an issue that 
clearly falls under the jurisdiction of State fish and wildlife 
agencies. In fact, 40 States already prohibit ownership of monkeys or 
require a license or permit in order to own a monkey. This is not 
within the realm of what national government needs to spend its time.
  As tragic as the incident in Connecticut was earlier with that 200-
pound chimpanzee, Travis, there is nothing in this legislation that 
addresses the ownership of monkeys. There is nothing that would have 
impacted that particular occurrence, unless the monkey was willing to 
chase the woman from Connecticut over to New York State. Then maybe 
there would have been some nexus for which this bill would yield 
because this bill only deals with interstate shipment of monkeys.

                              {time}  1500

  In 1975 the Federal Government prohibited the importation of nonhuman 
primates into the United States. There is no legal way to import a 
monkey into the United States for more than 30 years. So what, pray 
tell, is the overriding need for this legislation, which, once again, 
does not prohibit monkeys from biting; we're only prohibiting them from 
shipping them over States? If a person is bit by a monkey, it will only 
have any impact if that hand of the kid goes across the State line and 
then when withdrawing the hand, the monkey follows it back into a 
different State. Only then would there be some kind of nexus with this.
  It was stated that there are 15,000 monkeys in the United States. The 
vast majority of those are not pets but used in other facilities. It 
was also stated that there are dozens of incidents of monkey bites. 
Well, I hate to say this. It's kind of like President Adams once said, 
``Facts are stubborn things.'' In the decade from 1995 to 2005, there 
were only 132 documented incidences between captive primates and 
humans. Of that total, only 80 involved pet bites. That's 8 bites per 
year. If you really wanted to do something about protecting Americans 
from pets, go after dogs. You send 100,000 people to the hospital every 
year from being bitten by a pet dog. That maybe would have some 
relevance to what the Federal Government is trying to do.
  They also at some time will say that these nonhuman primates transmit 
disease. Once again in the 110th session of Congress, the expert 
testimony found that there is no documentation of pet primates being a 
threat to public safety.
  There is, though, a cost to this legislation. Regardless of the fact 
that the issue is minimal, the problem is minimal, the problem could 
easily be handled on a State-by-State basis, we will still appropriate 
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or we will demand the Fish and 
Wildlife Service cull out from their budget $4 million to hire 
additional staff to conduct interstate inspections and investigation to 
enforce this law. On a per basis, that translates to a half million 
dollars per monkey bite. It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife testified in opposition to this bill. They have 
better uses of their time and their money.
  So I urge my colleagues to resist this effort to try to make sure 
that everything in life is always fair and equal and controlled from 
these hallowed Halls of Washington and vote ``no'' on H.R. 80.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this bill and her leadership in guiding it to the floor 
once again.
  We often speak of an idea whose time has come. Today's legislation is 
long overdue. Even though the Captive Primate Safety Act passed the 
House overwhelmingly last session, it was one of those bills alluded to 
by my friend from Utah that went to the other body to die. I hope that 
today our vote will at least be nearly unanimous, overwhelmingly again, 
and the Senate follow our lead. This is a critical step in terms of 
protection of the public. The gentlewoman referenced the last week's 
horrific chimpanzee attack that brings renewed urgency to the 
legislation before us.
  I am a little frustrated when I hear my distinguished colleague 
attempt to belittle the import of this bill. It is common sense that 
exotic species or animals destined for the food chain are treated not 
just as an animal welfare issue but as a human welfare issue. Animal 
welfare legislation is about far more than merely treating God's 
creatures with the dignity and respect that is their due. How we treat 
these animals in our community reflects a lot on our own values and who 
we are.
  Last week's attack shows what can happen when primates are treated 
like pets rather than a wild animal. It's not an isolated instance. 
There have been 100 attacks on humans by primates in the last 10 years, 
29 of which involved children.
  We don't know why the chimpanzee that had been treated like a member 
of the household snapped. We don't know what prompted the act, but we 
do know the results. And, indeed, all the money my friend decreed will 
be spent and more trying to deal with this one woman who was 
horrifically maimed. And it could have been much worse. What if the 
rampage had taken place near a school, if the officers hadn't responded 
quickly, or if the chimpanzee in question had been infected with one of 
the many diseases they commonly carry? Primates should be added to the 
Lacey Act prohibition just as we added lions, tigers, and other big 
cats in 2003 with the passage of the Wildlife Safety Act.
  There is this notion somehow that we will just sit back, let the 
States provide legislation protection or not. Well,

[[Page H1619]]

we didn't do that with the big cats, appropriately so, and already it 
is not just illegal to import primates into the United States, but it's 
outlawed by 20 States. But primates are still readily available. 
Exactly the same way we have worked to deal with horrific consequences 
of animal fighting, which used to be legal in the various and sundry 
States, first dog fighting was made illegal, then cockfighting in a 
variety of States, but the prohibition of interstate transfer and 
making it a Federal misdemeanor was an important part of providing a 
chain of protection. When these animals can be regularly transported 
across State lines, they can be sold over the Internet, it's very 
difficult to have a pattern of protection.
  I salute the animal welfare advocates for their efforts. At times 
people are dismissive of one element or another, but the total package 
here is very important. With thousands of primates exposed to people 
around the country, we are in a situation where we have an opportunity 
to take the next important step. It is the least we can do to extend 
the protections of the Lacey Act. When we treat animals properly, 
respect the fact that they are not like us, that their needs are not 
being met, dressed up in tutus or taught to drink wine from wine 
glasses. The Lacey Extension Act will overnight stop the trade in 
animals that have no business being household pets. It will mean that 
the Federal Government is doing all we can to protect our citizens from 
attack and from disease. And, hopefully, this will be another step in a 
framework of protection where the 30 States that still allow primates 
as pets, including a number that have no regulation whatsoever, will be 
inspired to join the Federal Government and the 20 States which outlaw 
them entirely. In the meantime we are stopping this trade.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate what the gentleman says.
  Would you please explain to me how this bill is going to stop the 
horrific accident that occurred in Connecticut? I don't see how this 
bill will do that, and I would appreciate it if you would explain how 
this is going to prevent animal bites.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry. And let me 
explain. I will use the analogy that I just made on the floor with 
animal fighting. Dog fighting and cockfighting used to be commonly 
accepted activities. There were those in this Chamber who fought 
against having Federal protections to stop it. And what we saw is that 
when we don't have the Federal protections, when we rely on inadequate 
activities across State borders, there are many States that don't step 
up, that don't provide the protection, and if it isn't a serious enough 
element, the Federal Government doesn't deploy enforcement tactics. In 
fact, I think it was in your home State of Georgia that we finally had 
a horrific example of Michael Vick and animal fighting that finally 
drove the point home and raised the profile of that issue.
  Now, what we are going to have to do is to provide a framework of 
protection to move to where we are, in fact, actually taking seriously 
this responsibility. And it is not a case of monkey bites, and people 
are dismissing it, that it's not important, we will just leave it to 
the State. Obviously, there are some States that aren't stepping up and 
providing protection.
  I want it to be clear because this is an important step. It doesn't 
solve it overnight, but if we had moved earlier, provided protection, 
stopped the interstate transfer, put the spotlight on how serious this 
is, maybe, maybe we would have had States move forward to do what the 
other 20 States have done, to outlaw them. And when we get to this 
point where we have a framework of protection, licensing, and 
outlawing, we are not going to have a place where a neighbor called in 
distress comes forward and has her face ripped off. This monkey would 
not have been shipped from Missouri and the victim would not be in 
Cleveland getting a face transplant.
  I sincerely hope that you and other skeptics look at what is 
happening around the country and revise the notion that this isn't a 
serious problem, that instead the Federal Government ought to do all it 
can to stop it, that States ought to step forward and prohibit it, and 
in so doing all our families will be safer, healthier, and more 
economically secure.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Surely you're not suggesting that owning a 
primate is equal to cockfighting or dog fighting. Surely the gentleman 
is not suggesting that. I don't think you can compare. We're comparing 
apples to oranges in that situation. I don't support dog fighting. I 
don't support cockfighting. I'm a physician and I have treated a lot of 
animal bites in my career. But in my opinion, I don't think this is 
going to prevent animal bites of any kind, even primate bites, and the 
only person who is going to get bitten in this is the American 
taxpayer. You may say $5 million is not a lot of money, but the thing 
is the American public is going to be bitten in the wallet and it's 
going to be a program that is going to continue for some period of 
time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the suggestion.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. But do you compare this to dog fighting?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. What I'm saying precisely is that having a Federal 
framework to stop the transport of animals that are dangerous, that are 
not household pets is an important first step. This is, in fact, 
serious business. You can make the same argument, you can make exactly 
the same argument, about prohibiting big cats from being transferred. 
Just let it go. This is something that can be handled on the State 
level, that animal fighting is something that can just be handled on 
the State level and there is no role to play because you're still going 
to have problems. I respectfully suggest that contrary to your 
assertion that by having a framework for big cats, having a framework 
for animal fighting, and now for dangerous primates that should not be 
routinely treated like the traffic of household pets is an important 
step to protect the public. It was important for the big cats. It was 
important for cockfighting and dog fighting. And I think it's important 
that we do what we can to stop the potential of additional problems 
from primates and by not having them move in interstate commerce to be 
trafficking around the country. This is an important step for 
regulation and control.
  I think it's an important step forward. It's why there was an 
overwhelming vote last session, why it's supported by zoo keepers, 
animal welfare, research. This is, as I say, Mr. Speaker, legislation 
whose time has passed.

                              {time}  1515

  I would think what we saw in Connecticut is an example of why we need 
to be serious about the role that these primates play. They aren't 
pets. The Federal Government should not facilitate their treatment as 
pets to the 30 States that still, sadly, permit them in households, and 
many of them that don't have any regulatory controls at all.
  We will be doing our part today to do what the Federal Government can 
do to prevent such tragedies in the future, but I think it is an 
important signal for State legislatures around the country to step up 
and provide protection for their communities to prevent these 
activities, and I think it's critically important that we are part of 
an effort to inform the public of this problem.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), which was not where the dogfighting 
took place. That was Virginia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding, 
and I just wanted to make a comment.
  I just respectfully disagree with my friend from out West and from 
Oregon about his very impassioned debate here, and I understand that my 
friend is very passionate about this. As a physician, I am very 
concerned about animal bites myself.
  But I don't see where this bill is going to stop animal bites. I 
don't see where it's going to stop primate bites. If you want to outlaw 
primate ownership, then maybe that bill is one that you bring to the 
floor. I am not sure how we would vote on that, but I don't see how we 
can compare ownership of a

[[Page H1620]]

primate or even a lion or a tiger to dogfighting and cockfighting. They 
are totally separate entities and so totally separate issues.
  This is going to cost money when we are in a situation where the 
American public is fixing to be asked to increase their taxes, and we 
passed just 2 weeks ago, week-and-a-half ago, a huge stimulus bill that 
I don't think is going to stimulate the economy.
  But I do know this, increasing Federal spending and increasing 
Federal purview into people's lives, particularly States' lives, is not 
in the best interests of our taxpayers. It's not in the best interests 
of America, and, frankly, I carry a copy of the Constitution in my 
pocket all the time and I don't see anything in this document that 
allows us to continue to expand the size of the Federal Government like 
we are doing.
  So I just wanted to make a comment that I very much appreciate your 
impassioned remarks. I understand the horrible accident that my friend 
from Utah was not trying to belittle in any way whatsoever, and I am 
sure he would tell you the same thing, and I know that he has a heart 
just like we all do.
  This bill is not going to stop that type of activity, and I don't 
think it's in the best interests of America.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would also like to note that despite State laws, pet primates 
continue to be available for purchase between States, and this bill 
would prevent that. In one instance, all it took was $45,000 and a 
phone call to have a chimp shipped from Missouri to Maryland.
  While it is illegal to own a primate in 20 States, in the rest of the 
country there is little to no regulation, and that is why the chimp 
owner in Connecticut was able to purchase Travis from Missouri. What 
happened last Monday has happened repeatedly in the past, and it will 
happen again if we don't pass this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again we look into what we are 
doing here in Congress in terms of the relationship of how we spend our 
time and what is most productive for our constituents and the people of 
this great country.
  The gentleman from Georgia, I appreciate him implying that I have a 
heart. I don't think my kids would concur with that decision, but it 
happens to be there.
  What we are talking about, obviously in this particular bill, is 
simply the cause-effect relationship between a piece of legislation and 
the impact of that piece of legislation. It is true that there are 
15,000 chimpanzees in this country, the overwhelming majority of which 
are not owned as pets. They are in labs. They are in zoos. Those 
chimpanzees are specifically excluded by the language of this 
particular bill.
  We are only going after a small section, a small issue, and yet the 
so-called harm that's caused does not have a relationship to the bill 
in front of us. This is not dealing with bites. It's not dealing with 
ownership. If we are talking about ownership, that could be a 
legitimate nexus.
  This is simply importation and a Federal framework that goes a 
roundabout way and is not a way to actually come up with issues that 
solve the problems, especially when a State can do it just as easy as 
we can. Everyone's personal safety does not have to be guaranteed by a 
statute that comes from this Chamber of ours. There are other 
opportunities to deal with that.
  What we should be dealing with are the key issues that affect this 
country. The last time this bill was before us on the floor, it was one 
of those things where we refused to try and talk about significant 
issues at the time and instead dealt with issues like this. Not that 
this is an insignificant issue, but this is dealing with a small area 
of American life where we are faced with vast issues, and yet we still 
refuse to deal with them.
  It's almost like the end of whenever we left last week. It was the 
end of a TV season and we are starting over again, and yet we ended 
that TV season on a very high note of passing a bill of anywhere 
between 800 billion to $1 trillion with almost no discussion and time 
to debate it. We were promised 48 hours to talk about the stimulus 
bill.
  Actually, I guess I misheard because I am older; it was actually 4 to 
8 hours that we had to actually read about and learn about that 
stimulus bill before we jumped into the debate on this floor. And yet 
this week we come back for our new season, and we are doing the same 
thing again. We are faced with huge economic issues and huge bills 
coming down the pike, and yet, instead, we are not spending our time 
discussing those issues. We are spending our time discussing whether a 
prohibition of trade is the same thing as the prohibition of biting.
  Yet, look at what is coming before us. We are going to be talking 
about an omnibus bill, an omnibus appropriations bill, hopefully 
sometime this week. Only a few moments ago, the text was finally 
available, even before it goes into the Rules Committee tomorrow.
  Why are we not looking at that text and going through that? That is a 
$400 billion piece of legislation on top of the $1 trillion stimulus 
bill, on top of the $800 billion we did in bailouts, on top of $200 
billion for Freddie and Fannie and AIG, et cetera, et cetera, on top of 
maybe some $70 billion we are going to be using for the housing market, 
on top of another 5 to 10 for another omnibus land bill which may 
someday come here.
  All of these things are adding up, and yet we are not prioritizing 
the time of this Congress to deal with those. There is every indication 
that the omnibus spending bill that will be coming before us this week 
will come under a closed rule, which could indicate that there would be 
absolutely no debate on the floor of that bill. Not only are we not 
spending our time dealing with prioritizing what is important, we are 
not even allowing us, when we actually get to that point, to do it.
  Last year, for the first time in the history of this Congress, there 
was a closed rule on an appropriations bill. That has never happened 
before, and that is not the way these types of things should take 
place. That's what we should be talking about today. That's what we 
should be talking about. How are we doing? How is the spending that we 
keep going through, an 8.7 percent increase in discretionary spending, 
how is that going to have an impact, how will the housing decisions we 
are going to be making soon?
  That's where we should be spending our time. That's the discussion. I 
think, perhaps, if that were the discussion, maybe this room would be 
fully occupied by Members trying to find out where our future will be.
  What we are doing simply right now is galumphing towards some goal in 
which we will have almost minimal time to discuss the main issues, but 
we are spending a lot of time dealing with bills that have been passed 
before, and dealing with bills once again that don't have a cause-
effect relationship, which is why the entity that would be responsible 
for actually, actually supervising and enforcing this bill are opposed 
to it, because of that minimal nexus of cause-effect relationship. Now, 
that's the issue that we had before us.
  We should, as a Congress, be trying to prioritize our time so we are 
dealing with the important issues that have an impact for all Americans 
and have an impact for the future of this country. And until we can do 
that type of prioritization, we are missing our goal and missing our 
mission here as Members of Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time we have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady from Guam has 4 minutes.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I would therefore like to yield 2 minutes 
to Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you again.
  I don't want to belabor this, but I find no small amount of irony 
that my good friend from Utah is saying, well, we shouldn't be wasting 
time with this, we should be dealing with the major issues of the day, 
really the critical things. And then I look down the agenda and, lo and 
behold, he has two items on the suspension calendar that he is 
sponsoring that are coming forward, and I don't know that they meet the 
test that he just made of things that are going to shake the roots of 
the democracy and move forward to solve all our economic and global 
problems.
  We can, as they say, do more than one thing at once. We have a 
variety of

[[Page H1621]]

things that may not be earthshaking for everybody and deal with the 
future of the republic, but are important business none the less. 
That's why you put them on the suspension calendar to move them forward 
and that is why I have done so with this bill.
  I want to just conclude with the notion, though, of the framework, 
and the dismissive notion of, you know, animal bites. I would 
respectfully suggest that having your face ripped off is not the same 
as just an animal bite, a nip here or a scratch there. We are dealing 
with animals that have the potential of inflicting serious damage and 
death.
  We have a patchwork framework right now where the States, some have 
stepped up and recognized the responsibility and the danger to their 
citizens and have outlawed it. Others are starting to move in this 
direction and have some registration, for example.
  But what we do with this legislation is provide a framework so that 
it is possible to actually have some enforcement. But what I mentioned 
in terms of the analogy, and I am sorry I wasn't clear to my friend 
from Georgia, that when you don't have a framework, when States are 
free to do whatever they want and you can transport things across State 
borders, it undercuts the abilities of the States that are trying to 
protect their citizens like with animal fighting. With all due respect, 
this provides a framework to start making this enforcement work. Even 
if you disagree, if this bill had been the law of the land, the chimp 
in the most recent attack would never have been shipped from Missouri 
and an unfortunate woman would still have her face.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The gentleman from Oregon has said many things 
with which I totally agree.
  First of all, I didn't actually set the schedule. The Speaker sets 
the schedule. I do have two bills on the schedule, and I agree, those 
bills are not crucial to the value of this country. This country will 
survive without my bills.
  Actually, if we are living in the proper world, since both those 
bills, as many of these passed last year, the Senate should have dealt 
with them last year and got them over and we would be done with it. 
That's one of the problems; we have to deal with the other body. There 
is kind of a difference between my bills and this one as well. Mine 
don't cost anything.
  Mine also have the Federal entity that's involved in the Federal 
enrollment in support of those, and there is, I think, a cause-effect 
relationship that happens to be there. Having said that, it still 
doesn't change the fact that we are facing significant issues that we 
won't be addressing this week dealing with the economy, and dealing 
with how we are treating our fellow citizens in this Nation, and 
dealing with how we are going to ask taxpayers to pay for what we are 
dealing with, whether it's $1 trillion for a stimulus or a $200 billion 
bailout for Freddie and Fannie or $4 million a year to enforce a bill 
that could be done by the States and doesn't necessarily solve the 
problem that is supposedly the reason for the bill's introduction in 
the first place.
  So I hope that we can move on to more significant things, and I hope 
that we are allowed on the floor the time to talk about more 
significant things in the future. And, yes, I would include my two 
bills as insignificant in that pantheon of issues which Congress should 
be debating.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, again, I say this is a timely, important 
piece of legislation, and I urge my fellow colleagues to support bill 
number H.R. 80.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following exchange of 
letters between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
Natural Resources concerning certain jurisdictional matters on H.R. 80.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 2009.
     Hon. Nick Rahall,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rahall: In recognition of the desire to 
     expedite consideration of H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety 
     Act, the Committee on the Judiciary agrees to waive formal 
     consideration of the bill as to provisions that fall within 
     its rule X jurisdiction. Specifically, the bill adds a new 
     criminal prohibition for trafficking in nonhuman primates, 
     with felony penalties, including up to 5 years in prison.
       The Committee takes this action with the understanding that 
     by forgoing consideration of H.R. 80 at this time, it does 
     not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in 
     this or similar legislation, and with the understanding that 
     our Committee will be appropriately consulted as the bill or 
     similar legislation moves forward. The Committee also 
     reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate 
     number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving 
     this or similar legislation, and requests your support for 
     any such request.
       I would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the 
     House floor.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for the 
     cooperative working relationship between our two committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                John Conyers, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                 Washington, DC February 23, 2009.
     Hon. John Conyers,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding provisions of H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety 
     Act, that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary. I appreciate your willingness to waive 
     sequential referral of the bill so that it may proceed to the 
     House floor for consideration without delay.
       I understand that this waiver is not intended to prejudice 
     any future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or 
     similar language. I also understand that you reserve the 
     right to seek to have conferees named from the Committee on 
     the Judiciary on these provisions, and would support such a 
     request if it were made.
       This letter will be entered into the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of H.R. 80 on the House floor. Thank you 
     for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding 
     this matter and others between our respective committees.
       With warm regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                Nick J. Rahall II,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of H.R. 80, 
I rise in strong support of this legislation. During the last Congress, 
a similar bill was approved by the House on a vote of 302 to 96.
  In fact, this year's version is an improvement because it addresses 
the needs of certain non-profit humanitarian organizations who utilize 
nonhuman primates to assist permanently disabled Americans. These 
service monkeys have for over 30 years significantly improved the lives 
of dozens of Americans who suffer with polio, multiple sclerosis, 
spinal cord injuries and other severe mobility impairments.
  I would also like to compliment my distinguished Subcommittee 
Chairwoman, the Honorable Madeleine Bordallo who was willing to work in 
a bipartisan fashion to improve this legislation. During our Committee 
deliberations, two amendments were adopted to ensure that all non-human 
primate pets are treated in a humane manner.
  The first improvement allows owners to transport their beloved 
nonhuman primates across state lines when it becomes necessary to 
obtain essential veterinary care. During the debate on this measure, it 
became clear that there is a very limited number of veterinarians in 
the United States that have the expertise and even the interest in 
treating non-human primates.
  The second humanitarian improvement allows the transportation of 
nonhuman primates across state lines upon the death of their human 
owners. It is not unusual for many of these non-human primate species 
to live 25 or even 40 years and it becomes critical that they can be 
relocated to a safe, secure and health environment.
  Without these improvements, it was my fear that these monkeys would 
not receive adequate medical care or proper living conditions and that 
they would be dumped at an overcrowded zoo, wildlife sanctuary or 
animal shelter or simply abandoned to die.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 80, the Captive Primate 
Safety Act.
  Ms. BORDALLO. I have no further speakers, and 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. 80.
  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. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the

[[Page H1622]]

Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________