Captive Primate Safety Act

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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,

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.

I will be happy to yield.

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.

I yield.

I appreciate the suggestion.

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.

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.

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

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.

Reserving the right to object, and I do, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes to make comments regarding what has just been said.

Madam President, on February 16, 2009, a pet non-human primate, NHP, attacked Ms. Nash, a friend of the pet's owner--almost killing her. My thoughts and prayers are with Ms. Nash and I am sure I join all of my colleagues in wishing her a speedy and full recovery.

This unfortunate event has rushed consideration of the Captive Primate Safety Act, H.R. 80. H.R. 80 would make it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase non-human primates, such as monkeys and apes, by amending the over 100-year old Lacey Act to include ``any nonhuman primate.''

H.R. 80 does not affect laboratory animals, zoos, and some veterinarian cases.

This bill does not address a national priority and should not be considered by Congress.

Last Congress, I held the similar Senate version of the Captive Primate Safety Act, S. 1498, because of concerns with its fiscal impact and because I did not believe it was appropriate for the Federal Government to be regulating pets.

Today the Senate is trying to pass the similar House version that still seeks to increase Federal regulation of pets in a fiscally irresponsible manner without amendments or debate.

Supporters of this bill hope that somehow creating a new Federal law to prohibit transporting pet primates across State lines, on top of the Federal laws and regulations that already make it illegal to import them and the dozens of State laws that outlaw owning non-human primates as pets, and

giving the Fish and Wildlife Service $5 million to hire extra ``law enforcement'' staff to pursue chimps will make Americans safer.

Supporters of this measure are using the tragedy that occurred this month to ram this bill through Congress with no debate. This attack occurred in Connecticut, where a State law already existed that outlawed the possession of NHP's weighing more than 50 pounds without a permit. The NHP weighed 200 pounds and should have not been allowed under state law to live with its owner as a pet, but passing the Captive Primate Safety Act last year would not have prevented this tragedy and is not a national priority.

The bill authorizes $5 million in fiscal year 2010 to hire additional United States Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement personnel to enforce the new monkey provisions and CBO says the bill will cost taxpayers $17 million over 5 years. To enact such legislation without any offsets and therefore simply add to our national debt is extremely imprudent at this time in our nation.

There still have been no hearings and therefore no official statement or testimony available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as to whether or not this law is necessary and/or enforceable within the agency's current resources.

There is even a more basic question of whether or not a Federal wildlife agency should be regulating interstate pet transportation at all.

This law may be duplicative, unnecessary, and ineffective.

This matter of pet ownership may be more appropriately and effectively handled by local and State governments and agencies.

The UC does not allow an opportunity to amend this bill to address cost concerns.

This Bill spends money we don't have on something that is unnecessary.

CBO estimated last Congress that both the House and the Senate versions of the Captive Safety Act and last Congress's Senate bill, would cost $17 million over 5 years. H.R. 80 is almost identical to last Congress's House bill.

According to CBO, the cost of hiring four additional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, employees to conduct inspections and investigations and storing, transporting and boarding confiscated NHP's totals $17 million over 5 years.

The costs may in fact be even higher. According to one chimp sanctuary the annual cost to house two chimpanzees can exceed $35,000 a year. According to the Humane Society of the United States and various Members of Congress, there are an estimated 15,000 non-human primates in private hands. If the FWS were to try and confiscate and then house all 15,000 chimps, that could add up to a total cost of $262.5 million a year for the federal taxpayers, or $1.3 billion over 5 years.

The unanimous consent agreement would not allow anyone to offer amendments to offset the cost of this bill or perhaps cut back on other areas within the Fish and Wildlife's jurisdiction to pay for these new responsibilities.

Fourteen Monkey bites a year do not justify annual appropriations of $4 Million.

While the Humane Society of the United States said in a February 2009 press release that the Captive Primates Safety Act is an ``urgently needed public safety and animal welfare measure,'' other Americans may feel differently about prioritizing this issue above more pressing national issues.

The group justifies prioritizing H.R. 80 with American taxpayer resources because of recent captive primate incidents. An analysis of its list of ``recent incidents involving captive primates'' finds:

In 2008, 11 monkeys were reported as being involved in biting 14 people. One of the monkeys was in a university laboratory and another was in a wildlife sanctuary. Both of these types of monkeys are exempted and therefore would not be affected by the Captive Primates Safety Act.

In 2008, there were 39 non-human primates involved in 21 incidents, but 28 of the 39 monkeys involved in the reported incidents were not noted as having harmed humans.

Similarly, last Congress, the Humane Society and the Senate EPW committee justified the creation of a new Federal law by citing 132 reported incidents of human injury from captive or escaped captive primates over a 10-year period--which still averages out to only 13 a year.

In contrast, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Taking both the Humane Society and the CBO score together, the bill before us today, essentially calls for the Federal Government to spend the equivalent of over $444,000 per year to take nine biting monkeys out of their private owners' hands. Using another measurement, the FWS would spend the equivalent of over $285,000 per bite--$4 million divided by 14 people who were bitten by monkeys in 2008--if this bill passed.

Yet even these cost estimates may be understated because it is possible that none of the nine offending monkeys will ever cross State lines. In that case, unless State or local laws and officials caused their removal, these pets would remain with their owners.

While not seeking to diminish the physical or psychological effects of any monkey bites or attacks, taxpayers have a right to question if such a small number of incidents justify the large cost to the Federal Government of taking on additional animal control responsibilities.

In contrast, though some of the 4.7 million Americans bitten by dogs each year die as a result of these bites, Congress is not adding interstate dog transport to the lists of Federal wildlife responsibilities and prohibitions. If preventing human injuries caused by pets was a national priority, why aren't Senators and special interest groups pushing to outlaw the private ownership of dogs?

Passing the Captive Safety Act last Congress would not have prevented the recent attack.

Tragically, a 200-pound, 15-year-old chimpanzee named Travis--who was raised by the same owners since he was an infant--brutally attacked one of his owner's friends, Charla Nash, outside his house in Stamford, CT, in February 2009. The chimp, for still unknown reasons, attacked Ms. Nash, severely damaging her face and hands, according to news reports. She is in critical but stable condition. Travis died after being stabbed by his owner and being shot by a police officer after he charged the officer.

Following the recent chimp attack, the Humane Society has argued that if I had not held last year's bill, S. 1498, Ms. Nash would not have been attacked. This statement, however, is incorrect, because this bill would have only have removed Travis from his owner if the NHP crossed State lines.

Additionally, since 2004 under Connecticut State law it has been illegal to own an NHP weighing more than 50 pounds if the animal is not registered. Yet, State officials did not even require Travis--a 200 pound NHP--to be registered, even though he was well known. It appears Travis lived in Stamford, CT, for most of his life. His attack took place in front of his home. With the possible exception of an appearance on the Maury Povich show, which may or may not have been filmed in the New York City studio, nothing indicates that Travis was crossing state lines on a regular basis, nor did his unprovoked attack have any interstate aspect to it. The fact that he might have been born in another State 15 years ago, would not have affected Travis's private ownership 2 weeks ago if this bill had been signed into law last year.

What if Travis or his siblings grew up in the same State where they were born? The bill does nothing to address this situation; they have to cross State lines to fall under Federal jurisdiction. Why is a chimp native to and living in Missouri ok, but one moving to Connecticut, for example should suddenly become the business of the Federal Government? It is very unlikely that Travis' trip 15 years ago across a few State lines led to his attack in February. This is yet another reason why this bill is a misplaced priority and misguided effort.

If people are saying all chimps are dangerous and are against private ownership of nonhuman primates, why doesn't this bill simply make it a Federal crime to own them and take away the estimated 15,000 animals in private hands? Instead, to justify questionable Federal involvement, Congress is using the interstate commerce clause even

though this approach is both inappropriate and ineffective.

In a recent Boston Herald article April Truitt, director of the Primate Rescue Center in Kentucky, had the following to say regarding

Madam Speaker, from February 3, 2009, to March 4, 2009, I missed Roll Call votes 47-96. Unfortunately, I underwent a surgical procedure and was in California recuperating. Had I been here, I would have voted the following:

Roll Call Vote 47: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 82, raising awareness and encouraging prevention of stalking by establishing January 2009 as National Stalking Awareness Month;

Roll Call Vote 48: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 103, supporting the goals and ideals of National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week;

Roll Call Vote 49: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 559, The Fair, Accurate, Secure, and Timely (FAST) Redress Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 50: No on the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 51: Yes on the motion to commit with instructions S. 352, the DTV Delay Act;

Roll Call Vote 52: No on passage of S. 352, the DTV Delay Act;

Roll Call Vote 53: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 738, the Death in Custody Reporting Act;

Roll Call Vote 54: Yes on the motion to instruct conferees on H. R. 1, Making Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending 2009;

Roll Call Vote 55: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 114, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Girls and Women in Sports Day;

Roll Call Vote 56: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 60, Recognizing and commending University of Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford for winning the 2008 Heisman Trophy and for his academic and athletic accomplishments;

Roll Call Vote 57: No on the motion to table H. Res. 143, Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House;

Roll Call Vote 58: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 128, Honoring Miami University for its 200 years of commitment to extraordinary higher education;

Roll Call Vote 59: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 134, Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s visit to India and the positive influence that the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi had on Dr. King's work during the Civil Rights Movement;

Roll Call Vote 60: No on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 47, Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses;

Roll Call Vote 61: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 154, Honoring John D. Dingell for holding the record as the longest serving member of the House of Representatives;

Roll Call Vote 62: No on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 448, the Elder Abuse Victims Act;

Roll Call Vote 63: No on the motion to agree to H. Res. 157, providing for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes;

Roll Call Vote 64: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 117, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week;

Roll Call Vote 65: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 35, Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 100th anniversary;

Roll Call Vote 66: No on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 168, providing for consideration of the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 67: No on H. Res. 168, providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 68: No on the question of consideration of the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 69: Yes on the motion to recommit the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 70: No on agreeing to the conference report to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 71: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules agree to H. Res. 139, Commemorating the life and legacy of President Abraham Lincoln on the bicentennial of his birth;

Roll Call Vote 72: No on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 911, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act;

Roll Call Vote 73: No on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act;

Roll Call Vote 74: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 601, the Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act;

Roll Call Vote 75: No on approving the journal;

Roll Call Vote 76: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act;

Roll Call Vote 77: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 637, the South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act;

Roll Call Vote 78: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 83, Recognizing the significance of Black History Month;

Roll Call Vote 79: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 234, the Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building;

Roll Call Vote 80: Yes on approving the journal;

Roll Call Vote 81: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 47, Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day;

Roll Call Vote 82: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 180, Supporting the goals and ideals of the third annual America Saves Week;

Roll Call Vote 83: No on the consideration of H. Res. 184, providing for consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations for 2009;

Roll Call Vote 84: Yes on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 184, providing for consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations for 2009;

Roll Call Vote 85: Yes on H. Res. 184, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 86: No on passage of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations of 2009;

Roll Call Vote 87: No on the motion to table H. Res. 189, raising a question of the privileges of the House;

Roll Call Vote 88: No on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 190, providing for consideration of H.R. 1106 to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability;

Roll Call Vote 89: No on H. Res. 190, Providing for consideration of H.R. 1106 to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability;

Roll Call Vote 90: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 183, expressing condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of the victims of the crash of Continental Connection flight 3407;

Roll Call Vote 91: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 146, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act;

Roll Call Vote 92: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 548, the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act;

Roll Call Vote 93: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 77, congratulating the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, VA for more than 100 years of service and leadership to the United States;

Roll Call Vote 94: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201, recognizing Beverly Eckerts service to the nation and particularly to the survivors and families of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Roll Call Vote 95: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 195, recognizing and honoring the employees of the Department of Homeland Security on its sixth anniversary for their continuous efforts to keep the nation safe; and

Roll Call Vote 96: Yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 45, raising awareness and promoting education on the criminal justice system by establishing March as National Criminal Justice Month.

Madam President, I rise to speak about a terrible thing that happened in his home State. I am going to be asking unanimous consent at the appropriate time to move a bill, H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act. I will preface it first by saying to my friend, Senator Lieberman, that in his State there was a horrific attack.

Yes. It was an attack by a nonhuman primate--a chimpanzee in this case--that was a household pet, against a woman. Without going into the terrible details, I think the whole country was shocked at what occurred there.

Many of us have been saying for a long time that we need to fix this problem. In 1978, importing nonhuman primates to the U.S. for pet trade was banned by the CDC in regulations. But now you can still trade these primates in the pet trade and sell them for use as pets. We say it is time to end that.

I know Senator Coburn is going to object to our moving this bill which was passed by the House quickly and in a bipartisan way with just a handful of ``no'' votes. Can't we come together on this? The fact is, our bill says we are going to ban pet trading of these nonhuman primates, and we are going to get this done one way or another. We will not get it done today because Senator Coburn will object for his reasons. I believe it is important to state that our bill--and this is a Boxer-Vitter bill--has no impact on trade or transportation of animals for zoos or scientific research facilities or other federally licensed and regulated entities. All we are saying is that it is dangerous to keep as a pet a nonhuman primate. We saw this in Connecticut, but that was not the only time. There have been many examples. When we get this done, we will list those. We have been trying to get this passed for a long time. Senator Coburn objected. We will get around it at some point in time.

Primates can harbor many infectious diseases that can readily jump from species to humans. As a result, the CDC, back in 1975, said: No, no importation of those nonhuman primates unless it is for medical reasons or a zoo or to a Federal body that is going to oversee it. Listen to how many people have been injured. More than 150 people. How about children? Do you care about children? Forty children were injured by these nonhuman primates between 1995 and 2009. Nineteen States, including my own, have prohibited these animals as pets. Fourteen States restrict or partially ban their use as pets because many of these animals move in interstate commerce.

Federal legislation is needed. You would think this is a no-brainer-- you would think. Who supports this legislation? Well, the House of Representatives just passed it overwhelmingly on suspension of the rules. It wasn't even a problem over there. The Humane Society of the United States supports it. The American Veterinary Medical Association supports it. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums supports it. The Jane Goodall Institute supports it. The Wildlife Conservation Society supports it. That is a very small portion. I cannot believe I actually had to come out here today.

With all due respect to my friend, he will have his reasons, but, honestly, I hoped that once in a while we could work together on a bill that is so obvious in its need.

We know these nonhuman primates have not been bred and domesticated over thousands of years like dogs or cats. It is a whole different world there. That is why the veterinarians support us. Nobody loves pets more than the Humane Society. Nobody loves pets more, but they know what can happen. A woman got her face ripped off.

So I am not going to go into the details of the attack at this time, but if I have to I will to get the votes of colleagues.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act, which was received from the House; and, further, that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes following my friend from Oklahoma, and then I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sanders have 15 minutes on his subject.

Madam President, while my friend was speaking, I went back to my staff because this is not the first time we have had a problem on it. We had it in the big Coburn package of bills, and I remember my friend at that time made it the centerpiece of his objection. My staff has talked with his staff over and over again. The Republican staff on my committee, from where this bill came, has talked to the Senator over and over again.

I am happy to sit down with my friend. Maybe we can work this out. But here is the point. My friend says that what happened to this woman is unfortunate. No, what happened to this woman is a tragedy.

We do not go in and take away pets from anybody, if you read this bill. If you have a pet, you have a pet as long as you are living within the laws of your State. We ban the interstate trade because that is how this thing is moving forward. People get these pets, and they sell them across State lines. That is how we ban a lot of bad in this country. It is the way we have done it for a long time.

I just want to say to my friend, I didn't know this rose to the level where he and I should speak. I am delighted to sit down and talk with him. But the fact is, our staffs have been working with his staff for a very long time on this issue. Senator Vitter's staff and Senator Inhofe's staff have been working with the Senator's staff to try to get a breakthrough.

I hope the two of us can sit down, and maybe without our staffs-- maybe the problem is our staffs. I have a great staff. I am sure Senator Coburn does too. But maybe there is something that got in the way of their being able to resolve it. But I think he and I should sit down, and I will try to see if I can move this again, maybe with some kind of way we can fix it that doesn't give the Senator heartburn.

Honest to God, I say to my friend, we have made sure nobody is going to be invaded by a police force and lose their pet. That is not in here. Only if you try to move it across State lines, you wouldn't be allowed to sell your pet so that pet can injure somebody. Nobody is taking away anybody's pets. Nobody is stopping the zoos from getting these pets. Nobody is stopping research facilities from getting these pets. That is why we have such strong support for this legislation.

I am not a person who says my way or the highway, believe me. I have been here too long. I have gotten too many

bills passed. I will sit down with my friend. He is right that 90-some people on the other side voted no, but 300-some people voted aye. So we must have done something right here when we got over 300 votes in a body that has a hard time getting bipartisanship.

I say what we did right is we have a balanced bill. We allow these pets to be used for that which helps humanity, but we will, in effect, stop the interstate trade, the profitable pet trade which is leading us into a situation where we have seen so many injuries of children--40 children, about 100 adults injured between 1995 and 2009.

I am encouraged that my friend wants to work with me. I am going to go right over there as soon as I finish these remarks and figure out a way we can work on this issue because we do not want to wake up another day and read about somebody having an injury that is so horrific and horrible that they will never have a normal life when it is in our power to do what is right here and move forward.

I will not renew my request, but I will another day at a date, hopefully, when I have the support of my friend.

I yield the floor.