69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–712 

CAPTIVE PRIMATE SAFETY ACT 

JUNE 17, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. RAHALL, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2964] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 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, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
2 

(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—


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
3 

(1) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) and in the first sentence of paragraph (2), 

by inserting ‘‘(e),’’ after ‘‘subsections (b), (d),’’ each place it appears; and 

(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘, (e),’’ after ‘‘subsection (d)’’. 

SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY PROVISION AMENDMENT. 

Section 3 of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (117 Stat. 2871; Public Law 108–191) 

is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3’’ and inserting 

‘‘Section 3’’; and 

(2) by striking subsection (b). 

SEC. 5. REGULATIONS. 

Section 7(a) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3376(a)) is amended 

by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(3) The Secretary shall, in consultation with other relevant Federal and 

State agencies, issue regulations to implement section 3(e).’’. 

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL. 

In addition to such other amounts as are authorized to carry out the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), there is authorized to be appropriated 

to the Secretary of the Interior $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 to hire additional law 

enforcement personnel of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce that 

Act. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 2964 is 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. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 2964, The Captive Primate Safety Act, would amend the 

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to add nonhuman primates to the 

list of animals that cannot be transported across state lines. Specifically, H.R. 2964 prohibits the import, export, transportation, 

sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce of nonhuman primates in order to safeguard public health 

and safety and protect the welfare of monkeys, apes (which include 

chimpanzees and orangutans), marmosets and lemurs. The bill is 

similar to the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (CWSA), which Congress 

passed in 2003 to ban interstate commerce in lions, tigers, and 

other big cats for the pet trade. 

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. It is estimated that 15,000 nonhuman primates currently are in private 

hands. This number may be low due to the largely unregulated nature of the trade. 

Nonhuman primates may pose serious risks to public health and 

safety. They can transmit diseases such as Herpes B, monkey pox, 

Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, tuberculosis, yellow fever, and the 

Ebola virus. Further, nonhuman primates can inflict serious physical harm. While infant primates may seem as harmless as domesticated animals, they are wild creatures that inevitably grow more 

assertive and can become aggressive when frustrated or frightened. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
4 

The Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition reported that from 

January 1, 1995 to January 1, 2005 there were 132 incidents reported of human injury caused by captive primates or escapes of 

captive primates in the United States. 

Most people cannot provide the special care, housing, diet, maintenance, and enrichment that these animals require, including 

companionship with other nonhuman primates. If an owner becomes overwhelmed or unable to meet these needs, a nonhuman 

primate purchased in the interstate pet trade can ultimately face 

euthanasia, abandonment, or a lifetime of imprisonment in someone’s garage or basement. Alternatively, they may end up being 

sold to substandard roadside menageries or dumped back into the 

cycle of breeding, adding to the exotic animal industry. 

Interstate transport increases the probability of contact with 

strangers and untrained people, thereby augmenting the risks of 

disease spread and physical harm. Conversely, decreasing commerce in nonhuman primates, as H.R. 2964 would do, limits interactions and diminishes risks to humans. 

H.R. 2964 would not affect trade or transportation of animals for 

zoos, research facilities, or other federally licensed and regulated 

entities. Federal licenses or registration are required for all commercial activity, such as breeders, dealers, research institutions, 

exhibitors, and transporters; therefore, they are exempt from this 

legislation. 

H.R. 2964 also makes technical corrections to the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981 and the Captive Wildlife Safety Act in order 

to ensure that the CWSA provisions found in 16 U.S.C 3372 are 

fully enforceable. 

As mentioned, the CWSA amended the Lacey Act Amendments 

of 1981 to make it unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any prohibited wildlife species. Such prohibited wildlife species include any live species of lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, 

and cougar. The purpose of the law was to prevent the sale of these 

species as pets. 

It was not until the CWSA had been passed that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Department of Justice identified technical 

drafting problems with the legislation that made full implementation and enforcement impossible. 

Specifically, under the Lacey Act civil and criminal wildlife trafficking prohibitions are built upon a ‘‘two-step’’ prohibition scheme. 

Under section 3372(a), each trafficking violation—with the exception of violations of the CWSA—requires proof of two separate 

steps involving the wildlife at issue. First, the wildlife must be 

taken, possessed, transported or sold by someone in violation of existing laws or treaties. Second, the wildlife must be subsequently 

imported, exported, transported, sold, received, acquired or purchased. These two steps cannot be collapsed by prosecutors into one 

step or act committed by the defendant. 

As enacted, the CWSA is a one-step offense within a section of 

the Lacey Act that presumes two-step violations. Consequently, 

placement of amendments made by the CWSA in this section of the 

Lacey Act could make violations of the CWSA potentially difficult 

to enforce in court because some big cats may be legally possessed 

to begin with. H.R. 2964 would make the technical changes to the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
5 

law needed to allow the original intent of the legislation to be 

achieved. All exemptions under the existing CWSA would remain 

unchanged and in effect. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2964 was introduced by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnston (D–TX) on July 10, 2007. The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. 

On March 11, 2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. 

Representatives from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Jane Goodall Institute, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States and others testified 

in favor of the bill. The Administration opposed the bill, stating 

that it would expand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s enforcement responsibilities into what they consider to be a responsibility 

of state agencies. 

On June 4, 2008, the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. Rep. 

Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R–SC) offered an amendment to include a 

one-time authorization of appropriations for law enforcement, 

which was adopted by voice vote. Rep. Brown also offered an 

amendment to allow nonhuman primates to be transported across 

state lines to obtain veterinary care. Chairwoman Madeleine Z. 

Bordallo (D-GU) offered a second-degree amendment to the Brown 

amendment to place conditions on such transport to ensure the protection of the nonhuman primate and the humans involved in the 

provision of transport and medical care. The second-degree amendment also stipulated that the transportation and provision of veterinary care must be in accordance with all otherwise applicable 

state and local prohibitions and restrictions. Third, the second-degree amendment required the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations to implement the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. The 

Bordallo amendment was adopted by voice vote and the Brown 

amendment, as amended, was also adopted by voice vote. H.R. 

2964, as amended, was then recommended favorably to the Full 

Committee. 

On June 11, 2008, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to 

consider the bill. Ranking Member Don Young (R–AK) offered an 

amendment to permit the transport, with conditions, of a 

nonhuman primate to a legally designated caregiver in the event 

of the death of the preceding owner. It was adopted by unanimous 

consent. The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House 

of Representatives by unanimous consent. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides that this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Captive 

Primate Safety Act’’. 

Sec. 2. Addition of nonhuman primates to the definition of prohibited wildlife species 

This section amends the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to add 

nonhuman primates to the definition of ‘‘Prohibited Wildlife Species.’’


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
6 

Sec. 3. Captive wildlife amendments 

This section amends the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to add 

nonhuman primates to the group of animals that cannot be imported, exported, transported, sold, received, acquired or purchased 

in interstate or foreign commerce. This section also provides, and 

places conditions on, exemptions to the prohibition for the purposes 

of: (1) receiving veterinary care; and (2) transferring ownership of 

the nonhuman primate in the event of a caregiver’s death. 

Sec. 4. Applicability provision amendment 

This section makes technical corrections to ensure the implementation and enforcement of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (117 

Stat. 2871; Public Law 108–191). 

Sec. 5. Applicability provision amendment 

This section directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation 

with other relevant federal and state agencies, to issue regulations 

to implement the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. 

Sec. 6. Applicability provision amendment 

This section authorizes an appropriation to the Secretary of the 

Interior of $5 million for fiscal year 2009 to hire additional law enforcement personnel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce 

the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not contain 

any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or 

an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to treat 

nonhuman primates as prohibited wildlife species under that Act, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
7 

to make corrections in the provisions relating to captive wildlife offenses under that Act. 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 2964—Captive Primate Safety Act 

Summary: H.R. 2964 would amend the Lacey Act to prohibit 

interstate and foreign trade of nonhuman primates. The legislation 

also would authorize the appropriation of $5 million for 2009 for 

enforcement of the bill. CBO estimates that implementing the bill 

would cost $17 million over the 2009–2013 period, assuming appropriation of the amounts authorized for 2009 and amounts estimated to be necessary after that. The bill could increase revenue 

collections and direct spending, but we estimate that any such net 

changes would be insignificant. 

The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect 

the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

H.R. 2964 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in 

UMRA, on certain entities that handle nonhuman primates. CBO 

expects that the direct costs of the mandate would fall well below 

the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($136 million in 2008, adjusted for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2964 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2008–2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ........................................................ 5 3 4 4 4 20 

Estimated Outlays .......................................................................... 2 3 4 4 4 17 

Basis of estimate: H.R. 2964 would make it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase nonhuman primates (such as monkeys and apes). Violators of the proposed prohibition on interstate and foreign trade of such animals would be 

subject to criminal and civil penalties. 

Based on information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2964 

would cost about $4 million annually, primarily for additional staff 

to conduct inspections and investigations to enforce the legislation. 

CBO expects that the agency would take about three years to reach 

that level of effort. Thus, we estimate that the added duties for 

USFWS would cost about $17 million over the 2009–2013 period, 

assuming appropriation of the $5 million authorized to be appropriated for 2009 and the amounts estimated to be necessary after 

that. 

Enacting H.R. 2964 could increase revenues from civil and criminal fines. Based on information obtained from the USFWS about 

the relatively small number of violations likely to occur, CBO estiVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:01 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR712.XXX HR712

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
8 

mates that any such increase would be less than $500,000 annually. Moreover, such changes would be fully offset by increases in 

direct spending from the Crime Victims Fund (where criminal fines 

are deposited) or the resource management account of the USFWS 

(where civil fines are deposited and used for rewards to informers 

and for other program costs). 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

2964 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 2964 would impose 

a private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA. The bill would prohibit any person from importing, exporting, transporting, selling, 

receiving, acquiring, or purchasing nonhuman primates in interstate or foreign commerce. Several groups would be exempted from 

the prohibition, including entities that are licensed or registered by 

a federal agency. Importers, dealers, exhibitors, transporters, and 

research facilities that handle nonhuman primates are currently 

required to obtain a permit or license, or register with a federal 

agency. Therefore, those entities would not be affected by the provisions in the bill. 

The cost to any sanctuaries that would need to get accredited 

would be small. H.R. 2964 also would exempt, under the conditions 

specified in the bill, individuals transporting nonhuman primates 

to veterinarians or to designated care givers upon the death of the 

owner. CBO expects that those individuals would incur minimal 

costs to meet those conditions. The costs to others who would be 

affected by the mandate also would be minimal. Consequently, 

CBO expects that the local direct cost of complying with the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold established in 

UMRA for private-sector mandates ($136 million in 2008, adjusted 

for inflation). 

Previous CBO estimate: On August 20, 2007, CBO transmitted 

a cost estimate for S. 1498, the Captive Primates Safety Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Public Works and Environment on July 31, 2007. S. 1498 and H.R. 2964 are very similar. The estimated total costs of the two versions of the legislation 

are the same, but the timing of outlays is slightly different because 

we assume that H.R. 2964 will be enacted at a later date. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrill; Impact on 

the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 2964 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
9 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

For purposes of this Act: 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) PROHIBITED WILDLIFE SPECIES.—The term ‘‘prohibited wildlife 

species’’ means any live species of lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or cougar or any hybrid of such species or any nonhuman primate. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. PROHIBITED ACTS. 

(a) OFFENSES OTHER THAN MARKING OFFENSES.—It is unlawful 

for any person—

(1) * * * 

(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce—

(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or 

sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or 

in violation of any foreign law; or 

(B) any plant— (i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation 

of any law or regulation of any State, or any foreign 

law, that protects plants or that regulates— (I) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(iii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of 

any State, or under any foreign law, governing the export or transshipment of plantsø; or¿; 

ø(C) any prohibited wildlife species (subject to subsection 

(e));¿ 

* * * * * * * 

(4) to attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) 

through (3) or subsection (e). 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) NONAPPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITED WILDLIFE SPECIES OF- FENSE.—

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a)(2)(C) does not apply¿ 

(e) CAPTIVE WILDLIFE OFFENSE.—


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
10 

(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 to importation, exportation, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase of an animal 

of øa¿ any prohibited wildlife species, by a person that, 

under regulations prescribed under paragraph ø(3)¿ (4), is 

described in paragraph ø(2)¿ (3) with respect to that species. 

ø(2)¿ (3) PERSONS DESCRIBED.—A person is described in this 

paragraph, if the person—

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) is an accredited wildlife sanctuary that cares for prohibited wildlife species and—

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
11 

(ii) does not commercially trade in øanimals listed in 

section 2(g)¿ prohibited wildlife species, including offspring, parts, and byproducts of such animals; 

(iii) does not propagate øanimals listed in section 

2(g)¿ prohibited wildlife species; and 

(iv) does not allow direct contact between the public 

and øanimals¿ prohibited wildlife species; or 

(D) has custody of the øanimal¿ prohibited wildlife species solely for the purpose of expeditiously transporting the 

øanimal¿ prohibited wildlife species to a person described 

in this paragraph with respect to the species. 

ø(3)¿ (4) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in cooperation with the Director of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, shall promulgate regulations describing the persons described in paragraph ø(2)¿ (3). ø(4)¿ (5) STATE AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this subsection preempts or supersedes the authority of a State to regulate wildlife species within that State. 

ø(5)¿ (6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out øsubsection (a)(2)(C)¿ 

this subsection $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 

2008. 

(7) APPLICATION.—This subsection shall apply beginning on 

the effective date of regulations promulgated under this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4. PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS. 

(a) CIVIL PENALTIES.— (1) Any person who engages in conduct prohibited by any 

provision of this Act (other than subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) 

of section 3) and in the exercise of due care should know that 

the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, or in a manner unlawful under, 

any underlying law, treaty, or regulation, and any person who 

knowingly violates subsection (d), (e), or (f) of section 3, may 

be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than 

$10,000 for each such violation: Provided, That when the violation involves fish or wildlife or plants with a market value of 

less than $350, and involves only the transportation, acquisition, or receipt of fish or wildlife or plants taken or possessed 

in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United 

States, any Indian tribal law, any foreign law, or any law or 

regulation of any State, the penalty assessed shall not exceed 

the maximum provided for violation of said law, treaty, or regulation, or $10,000, whichever is less. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—

(1) Any person who—

(A) knowingly imports or exports any fish or wildlife or 

plants in violation of any provision of this Act (other than 

subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 3), or 

(B) violates any provision of this Act (other than subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 3) by knowingly enVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:01 Jun 18, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR712.XXX HR712

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
12 

gaging in conduct that involves the sale or purchase of, the 

offer of sale or purchase of, or the intent to sell or purchase, fish or wildlife or plants with a market value in excess of $350, 

knowing that the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, or in a manner unlawful under, any underlying law, treaty or regulation, shall be 

fined not more than $20,000, or imprisoned for not more than 

five years, or both. Each violation shall be a separate offense 

and the offense shall be deemed to have been committed not 

only in the district where the violation first occurred, but also 

in any district in which the defendant may have taken or been 

in possession of the said fish or wildlife or plants. 

(2) Any person who knowingly engages in conduct prohibited 

by any provision of this Act (other than subsections (b), (d), (e), 

and (f) of section 3) and in the exercise of due care should 

know that the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, possessed, 

transported, or sold in violation of, or in a manner unlawful 

under, any underlying law, treaty or regulation shall be fined 

not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than one 

year, or both. Each violation shall be a separate offense and 

the offense shall be deemed to have been committed not only 

in the district where the violation first occurred, but also in 

any district in which the defendant may have taken or been in 

possession of the said fish or wildlife or plants. 

(3) Any person who knowingly violates subsection (d), (e), or 

(f) of section 3— (A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) REGULATIONS.—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) The Secretary shall, in consultation with other relevant 

Federal and State agencies, issue regulations to implement section 3(e). 

* * * * * * * 

CAPTIVE WILDLIFE SAFETY ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. PROHIBITED ACTS. 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3¿ Section 3 of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3372) is amended—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(b) APPLICATION.—Section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (as added by subsection (a)(1)(A)(iii)) shall apply beginning on the effective date of regulations promulgated under section 3(e)(3) of that Act (as added by subsection (a)(2)).¿ 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(13) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

According to various sources, there are approximately 15,000 primate pets in the United States. All pet primates have been born 

in the United States and sold by USDA licensed breeders for the 

past 33 years and they cost between $3,000 to $30,000 each. The 

Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition has stated that 132 people have been injured by primates in the past ten years with nearly 

40 percent of those injuries occurring in laboratories, research facilities, sanctuaries and zoos. These facilities are all exempt under 

the Captive Primate Safety Act. In contrast, there is evidence indicating that large dogs send nearly 300,000 people to hospital emergency rooms each year. 

It has been argued that primates infect their human hosts with 

a variety of deadly diseases. In fact, there is little documented evidence that primate pets are infecting their human owners or even 

have the same diseases that are found in wild primate populations. 

During testimony on this legislation, Dr. Sian Evans, the Director 

of the DuMond Conservancy for Primates and Tropical Forests testified that: ‘‘Pet primates are not a documented source of disease 

for humans. There is no documentation or scientific evidence to 

support these claims.’’

In summary, there are more than 40 states that either prohibit 

or require a license or permit to own a non-human primate, a significant number of injuries caused by primates have happened at 

exempted facilities such as laboratories, sanctuaries and zoos, there 

is no documented evidence that primate pets are infecting their 

owners and there is a real question of whether the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service should be responsible for regulating the pet industry, particularly at a cost of $5 million. 

BILL SALI. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING