[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12592-12596]
[From the U.S. 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--
       (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--

[[Page 12593]]

       (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.
  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 12594]]

 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

[[Page 12595]]

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. 
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

[[Page 12596]]

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 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.

                          ____________________