[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 26381-26382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     CHIMPANZEE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3514 which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3514) to amend the Public Health Service Act 
     to provide for a system of sanctuaries for chimpanzees that 
     have been designated as being no longer needed in research 
     conducted or supported by the Public Health Service, and for 
     other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to clarify some 
issues related to the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and 
Protection Act by entering into a colloquy with my colleague from New 
Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith. Senator Smith, as my fellow prime sponsor 
of the Senate version of this legislation, S. 2725, I would first like 
to address the House amendment to the bill, which would allow for the 
possibility of temporarily removing certain chimpanzees from a 
sanctuary for medical research? Is it your understanding that the 
purpose of the CHIMP Act is still to provide a permanent lifetime 
sanctuary for chimpanzees who have been designated as no longer useful 
or needed in scientific research?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. My colleague from Illinois is correct. 
The bill calls on the scientists themselves to make the determination 
that a chimpanzee is no longer useful for research and to formally 
release the chimpanzee to the sanctuary system for permanent cessation 
of scientific experimentation.
  The amended version of the legislation allows one exception: In that 
rare, unforeseen circumstance, where a specific sanctuary chimpanzee 
may be required because a research protocol he endured in the past, 
combined with a technological advance that was not available or 
invented at the time he was released, could provide extremely useful 
information essential to address an important public health need, then 
that chimpanzee may be used in research if, and only if, the proposed 
research involves minimal pain and distress to the chimpanzee, as well 
as to other chimps in the social group, as evaluated by the board of 
the sanctuary. Of course, if a chimpanzee currently in a lab setting 
meets the same criteria, then the bill requires that the sanctuary 
chimpanzee not be used.
  Mr. DURBIN. The amended version also requires that the research can 
only be sought by an applicant who has not previously violated the 
Animal Welfare Act, does it not? And it requires that if a chimpanzee 
is ever to be removed from a sanctuary for research, the chimpanzee 
must be returned to the sanctuary immediately afterward and all 
expenses associated with the departure, such as travel and ongoing 
care, must be borne by the research applicant. The chimpanzee should 
spend as little time away from the sanctuary as possible.
  Additionally, before any proposed research use can be approved, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services must publish in the Federal 
Register the Secretary's findings on each of these criteria, including 
the board's evaluation regarding pain and distress, and seek public 
comment for at least 60 days.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator is correct on each of those 
points, which will serve to further limit the possibility of sanctuary 
chimpanzees being recalled for research. It is my intention, and the 
intent of the amended legislation, that any such research would rarely, 
if ever, take place.
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree with my colleague from New Hampshire that the 
research exception is intended only to be exercised, if at all, under 
truly extraordinary and rare circumstances. There have also been 
concerns expressed by some that the CHIMP Act is too expensive. I think 
it would be helpful for us to address those concerns for the record.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I agree, it would be good to set the 
record straight on this issue. The federal government now spends 
millions of dollars each year for the maintenance and care of 
chimpanzees who are no longer used in medical research, but are being 
warehoused in expensive taxpayer-funded laboratory cages. The CHIMP Act 
will actually save taxpayers money because the sanctuary setting is so 
much less expensive to build and operate than laboratory facilities.
  The Congressional Budget Office prepared a cost estimate for S. 2725, 
the legislation that you and I introduced in June. H.R. 3514, the House 
counterpart that is now pending in the Senate, is identical to S. 2725 
in terms of the cost issues. The CBO concluded that ``the cost of 
caring for a chimpanzee in an external sanctuary would be less 
expensive on a per capita basis than if

[[Page 26382]]

the government continued to house the animals in federally owned and 
operated facilities. Therefore, the government would realize a savings 
in the care and maintenance of the chimpanzees after 2002.'' CBO 
estimated the annual savings after initial sanctuary construction costs 
to be an average of $4 million per year after 2002.
  It costs $8-$15 per day per animal to care for chimpanzees in a 
sanctuary, where they live in groups in a naturalized setting. That is 
compared to the $20-$30 per day per animal that the federal government 
is now spending to maintain the chimpanzees in laboratory cages.
  Even in terms of sanctuary start-up costs, taxpayers will benefit 
because sanctuaries are two to three times less costly to build than 
laboratory facilities for chimpanzees. While the federal government is 
now squandering very high-priced laboratory space warehousing surplus 
chimpanzees, the CHIMP Act will allow this space to be utilized for 
animals in research, reducing the need to fund new laboratory 
construction.
  Mr. DURBIN. In addition, the CHIMP Act caps overall multi-year 
federal expenditures related to building and operating the sanctuary 
system at $30 million, compared to the $7 million spent now each year 
by the federal government for the care of chimpanzees in laboratories, 
as estimated by the CBO.
  And this legislation creates a public-private partnership, to 
generate non-federal dollars that will help pay for the care of these 
chimpanzees. Right now, their care is financed strictly through 
taxpayer dollars. Under the bill, the private sector will cover 10 
percent of the start-up costs and 25 percent of the operating costs of 
the sanctuary system.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
raising those points. I'd also like to address one other issue that may 
be on the minds of some of our colleagues. That is the question of 
euthanasia. Fiscal conservatives may question why we should worry at 
all about the long-term care of chimpanzees no longer used in medical 
research. The answer is: it's basically a cost of doing business. If 
the federal government wants to keep using chimpanzees for medical 
research, it has to assume the responsibility for their care after the 
research is done. This isn't just my opinion, as someone who cares 
about animals. It was the conclusion of the National Research Council, 
an esteemed body under the National Academy of Sciences, which was 
asked by NIH to investigate the problem of chimpanzees no longer used 
for biomedical research.
  The NRC conducted a thorough three-year study and issued a report in 
1997--Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for Their Ethical Care, 
Management, and Use--which recommended sanctuaries as an ``integral 
component of the strategic plan to achieve the best and most cost-
effective solutions to the current dilemma.'' The NRC report clearly 
rejects the option of euthanizing surplus chimpanzees, based on views 
strongly conveyed to the NRC by members of the scientific community as 
well as the public. ``Many members of the public and the scientific 
community have called for continuing support for chimpanzees in an 
acceptable environment, rather than euthanizing them, even when they 
are no longer wanted for breeding or research. The committee fully 
recognizes the financial implication of this position in regard to 
lifetime funding for all animals and for additional space and 
facilities for an aging population.'' The report cites the close 
similarities between chimpanzees and humans, noting that ``[t]here are 
practical as well as theoretical reasons to reject euthanasia as a 
general policy. Some of the best and most caring members of the support 
staff, such as veterinarians and technicians would, for personal and 
emotional reasons, find it impossible to function effectively in an 
atmosphere in which euthanasia is a general policy, and might resign. A 
facility that adopted such a policy could expect to lose some of its 
best employees.'' In other words, because chimpanzees and humans are so 
similar, those who work directly in chimpanzee research would find it 
untenable to continue using these animals if they were to be killed at 
the conclusion of the research.
  Mr. DURBIN. Therefore, if the Federal government is to keep using 
chimpanzees to advance human health research goals, long-term care of 
the animals is a pre-requisite. This legislation will help ensure that 
the Federal government fulfills that responsibility in a more cost-
effective and humane way than is currently done. I thank Senator Smith 
for the opportunity to work together to enact this fiscally sound 
legislation that will better serve the taxpayers as well as the 
animals.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank Senator Durbin and the rest of 
our colleagues for helping to get this legislation enacted before 
Congress adjourns. It is time to improve the lot of these animals and 
do right by taxpayers at the same time.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to ask the prime sponsor of the 
CHIMP Act if it is his intention that the federal share of funding for 
establishing and operating the national chimpanzee sanctuary system is 
to come out of NIH's budget?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes, it is my intention and the intent of 
the legislation that these funds will be drawn from the budget for the 
National Institutes of Health.
  Mr. ENZI. So this legislation will not require additional funding 
over and above the NIH's annual appropriation?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 3514) was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________