[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 126 (Thursday, July 28, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7388-H7395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1515
BIG CAT PUBLIC SAFETY ACT
Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1256, I call up
the bill (H.R. 263) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to
clarify provisions enacted by the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, to
further the conservation of certain wildlife species, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1256, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 263
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 ``Big Cat Public Safety Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 2 of the Lacey Act Amendments of
1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (k) as
subsections (b) through (l), respectively; and
(2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(a) Breed.--The term `breed' means to facilitate
propagation or reproduction (whether intentionally or
negligently), or to fail to prevent propagation or
reproduction.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Consolidated farm and rural development act.--Section
349(a)(3) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
(7 U.S.C. 1997(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``section 2(a)'' and inserting ``section
2''; and
(B) by striking ``3371(a)'' and inserting ``3371''.
(2) Lacey act amendments of 1981.--Section 7(c) of the
Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3376(c)) is amended
by striking ``section 2(f)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``section
2(g)(2)(A)''.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS.
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 striking the semicolon at the
end and inserting ``; or'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``; or'' and
inserting a semicolon; and
(iii) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(1) through (3)'' and
inserting ``(1) through (3) or subsection (e)''; and
(2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Captive Wildlife Offense.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it
is unlawful for any person to--
``(A) import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or
purchase in interstate or foreign commerce, or in a manner
substantially affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or
``(B) breed or possess;
any prohibited wildlife species.
``(2) Limitation on application.--Paragraph (1) does not
apply to--
``(A) an entity exhibiting animals to the public under a
Class C license from the Department of Agriculture, or a
Federal facility registered with the Department of
Agriculture that exhibits animals, if such entity or facility
holds such license or registration in good standing and if
the entity or facility--
``(i) does not allow any individual to come into direct
physical contact with a prohibited wildlife species, unless
that individual is--
``(I) a trained professional employee or contractor of the
entity or facility (or an accompanying employee receiving
professional training);
``(II) a licensed veterinarian (or a veterinary student
accompanying such a veterinarian); or
``(III) directly supporting conservation programs of the
entity or facility, the contact is not in the course of
commercial activity (which may be evidenced by advertisement
or promotion of such activity or other relevant evidence),
and the contact is incidental to humane husbandry conducted
pursuant to a species-specific, publicly available, peer-
edited population management and care plan that has been
provided to the Secretary with justifications that the plan--
``(aa) reflects established conservation science
principles;
``(bb) incorporates genetic and demographic analysis of a
multi-institution population of animals covered by the plan;
and
``(cc) promotes animal welfare by ensuring that the
frequency of breeding is appropriate for the species; and
``(ii) ensures that during public exhibition of a lion
(Panthera leo), tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard (Panthera
pardus), snow leopard (Uncia uncia), jaguar (Panthera onca),
cougar (Puma concolor), or any hybrid thereof, the animal is
at least 15 feet from members of the public unless there is a
permanent barrier sufficient to prevent public contact;
``(B) a State college, university, or agency, or a State-
licensed veterinarian;
``(C) a wildlife sanctuary that cares for prohibited
wildlife species, and--
``(i) is a corporation that is exempt from taxation under
section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
described in sections 501(c)(3) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of such
Code;
``(ii) does not commercially trade in any prohibited
wildlife species, including offspring, parts, and byproducts
of such animals;
``(iii) does not breed any prohibited wildlife species;
``(iv) does not allow direct contact between the public and
any prohibited wildlife species; and
``(v) does not allow the transportation and display of any
prohibited wildlife species off-site;
``(D) has custody of any prohibited wildlife species solely
for the purpose of expeditiously transporting the prohibited
wildlife species to a person described in this paragraph with
respect to the species; or
``(E) an entity or individual that is in possession of any
prohibited wildlife species that was born before the date of
the enactment of the Big Cat Public Safety Act, and--
``(i) not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the such Act, the entity or individual registers
each individual animal of each prohibited wildlife species
possessed by the entity or individual with the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service;
``(ii) does not breed, acquire, or sell any prohibited
wildlife species after the date of the enactment of such Act;
and
``(iii) does not allow direct contact between the public
and prohibited wildlife species.''.
SEC. 4. PENALTIES.
(a) Civil Penalties.--Section 4(a)(1) of the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3373(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(e),'' after ``(d),''; and
(2) by inserting ``, (e),'' after ``subsection (d)''.
(b) Criminal Penalties.--Section 4(d) of the Lacey Act
Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3373(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``(e),'' after
``(d),'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``(e),'' after
``(d),'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(e),'' after ``(d),'';
and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Any person who knowingly violates section 3(e) shall
be fined not more than $20,000, or imprisoned for not more
than 5 years, or both. Each violation shall be a separate
offense and the offense is deemed to have been committed in
the district where the violation first occurred, and in any
district in which the defendant may have taken or been in
possession of the prohibited wildlife species.''.
SEC. 5. FORFEITURE OF PROHIBITED WILDLIFE SPECIES.
Section 5(a)(1) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16
U.S.C. 3374(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``bred,
possessed,'' before ``imported, exported,''.
SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION.
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:
``(3) The Secretary shall, in consultation with other
relevant Federal and State agencies, promulgate any
regulations necessary to implement section 3(e).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective
designees.
After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the further
amendment printed in part A of House Report 117-444, if offered by the
Member designated in the report, which shall be considered read, shall
be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not
be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) and the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Westerman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
General Leave
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to insert extraneous material on H.R. 263.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H7389]]
Mr. Speaker, the question that this bill addresses is whether the
private, unregistered ownership and exploitation of big cats, meaning
lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, cougars, and hybrids of them should
continue considering significant and real animal welfare, public
safety, and law enforcement safety concerns.
H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act says no, and would end the
ownership of big cats as private pets and prohibit exhibitors from
allowing public contact with big cats, including cubs.
This bill is a culmination of over a decade of bipartisan effort. The
Big Cat Public Safety Act, in one form or another, has been introduced
by, cosponsored by, and generally supported by Republicans and
Democrats alike for well over a decade. Since the 112th Congress, Big
Cats have garnered 933 bipartisan cosponsors. It was initially
introduced by three different Republicans over a number of Congresses,
as well as the current Democratic sponsor.
We have continued to refine the bill in the decade since its first
introduction. We passed it by suspension last Congress, and I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it again now.
The Big Cat Public Safety Act is endorsed not only by numerous
environmental, animal welfare, and other organizations, but by
countless law enforcement agencies and associations, including the
National Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, State-
specific sheriffs' associations, and individual law enforcement
officers.
We need to look no further than the compelling testimony from Sheriff
Matt Lutz before our Natural Resources Committee to understand the
broad concerns with the status quo.
In 2011, specifically, more than 50 exotic animals, including 38
lions, tigers, and cougars were released into the public from a private
residence in Zanesville, Ohio, shutting down a highway and terrifying
the neighbors.
Sheriff Lutz led the law enforcement response to the crisis. He
testified at our hearing this year that his department didn't have any
inventory of how many animals there were, they barely even knew that
they were there to start with, and his officers weren't trained,
obviously, to deal with big cats and other exotic animals released into
a public setting en masse.
Incredibly, no one was killed or seriously injured in Zanesville that
day, but as Sheriff Lutz testified: ``The outcome could have been much
worse if any single condition had been just slightly different, and it
could be far worse the next time.''
Precisely because private ownership is unregulated and largely
unknown, we don't know how many big cats are currently kept in private
ownership in the U.S., but estimates are as high as 20,000.
Privately owned big cats are often purchased or bred as cubs for
photo ops, and as they grow larger, they are sold into the exotic pet
trade or on the black market for wildlife parts. Adult big cats in
private ownership typically live in inhumane conditions that threaten
public safety.
Since 1990, around 300 dangerous incidents involving big cats have
resulted in human injuries, mauling, and death. In many cases, the
animals are shot and killed, as first responders are not equipped for
these situations.
In 2003, Congress unanimously passed the Captive Wildlife Safety Act,
which amended the Lacey Act to prohibit importing, exporting, buying,
selling, transporting, receiving, or acquiring big cats across States
and the U.S. border.
Though State laws vary, there is no Federal policy regarding the
private possession or use of big cats, and one is critically needed.
This bill narrowly focuses on privately owned animals. It includes
exemptions for exhibitors with U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA,
Class C licenses, and current owners are grandfathered in as long as
they register with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and abide by
listed regulations.
H.R. 263 will protect first responders and the public, as well as the
animals themselves.
In addition to public safety concerns, the exotic cat trade fuels
other criminal behavior that we in Congress should not be supporting.
As just one example, the TV series ``Tiger King'' showed us that
there is a dark and dangerous side to keeping lions, tigers, and other
big cats in captivity. In fact, Joe Exotic from that series is in jail
for violating the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Now, some opponents of this bill argue that we need to make changes
to the bill to help small zoos stay in business. This bill would not
affect small zoos. The reality is that most zoos, whether they are big
or small, already have policies in place that reflect the Big Cat
Public Safety Act standards. They are not going to be asked to do
anything that they are not doing already. They don't allow public
contact or cub petting, and they already keep cats at a safe distance
away from the public. There are only a small few who still allow it,
and they shouldn't.
Now, we may hear claims from my colleague on the other side this is a
USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture issue, not a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service issue. The fact is that the USDA does not regulate
private ownership of animals like big cats.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has long been responsible for
regulating big cats' interstate transfer and commerce under the Lacey
Act and has the authority to regulate the possession and breeding of
endangered species, including big cats.
While the USDA provides basic requirements for preventing cruelty to
exhibited animals, the Fish and Wildlife Service is the one that must
provide stringent standards to ensure that threatened and endangered
species are managed to actively promote conservation, regardless of
whether the animals are exhibited to the public.
The Big Cat Public Safety Act merely strengthens and expands an
already existing framework under the Lacey Act. It is a commonsense,
and, again, uniquely bipartisan solution to address public safety and
animal abuse concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 26, 2022, letter from the
Congressional Budget Office.
Congressional Budget Office,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, July 26, 2022.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 263, the Big Cat
Public Safety Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lilia
Ledezma.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel.
Enclosure.
H.R. 263, Big Cat Public Safety Act--July 22, 2022
[By fiscal year, millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 2022-2027 2022-2032
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending (Outlays)........... 0 * *
Revenues............................ 0 * *
Increase or Decrease (-) in the 0 * *
Deficit............................
Spending Subject to Appropriation * 3 **
(Outlays)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* = between -$500,000 and $500,000.
** = not estimated.
Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes.
Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2033? No.
Mandate Effects:
Contains intergovernmental mandate? Yes, Under Threshold.
Contains private-sector mandate? Yes, Under Threshold.
Current law prohibits the import, export, purchase, sale,
transport, or acquisition of big cats, such as lions and
tigers, across state lines or the national border. H.R. 263
would generally prohibit the breeding and possession of those
animals, although wildlife sanctuaries, veterinarians,
colleges and universities, zoos, exhibitions, and other
entities that meet certain requirements would be exempt. In
addition, people who already own such animals would be
permitted to keep them if they register with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 263 will be
enacted late in fiscal year 2022. The bill would direct USFWS
to issue regulations to implement the prohibition on breeding
and possession. In addition, CBO expects that under the bill,
the Department of Agriculture (USDA) could revise existing
regulations on the licensing of entities that possess,
exhibit, and breed big cats. Based on the costs of similar
tasks, we estimate that developing those regulations would
cost $1 million over the 2022-2023 period.
Many states already prohibit ownership of the affected
species and CBO expects that people who currently own such
animals would register with USFWS. Thus, violations under the
bill would probably occur infrequently. On that basis, CBO
estimates that
[[Page H7390]]
USFWS would incur costs of less than $500,000 annually after
2023 to maintain the registry and conduct enforcement. In
total, we estimate that implementing H.R. 263 would cost
about $3 million over the 2022-2027 period; such spending
would be subject to the availability of appropriated
funds.
Under H.R. 263, violators would be subject to criminal and
civil penalties, which are recorded in the budget as
revenues; some of those penalties could be spent without
further appropriation. Thus, enacting the bill would increase
revenues and direct spending, but CBO estimates that those
increases would be insignificant over the 2022-2032 period
because we expect the number of violations would be small.
Because H.R. 263 would either prohibit the possession and
breeding of big cats or require owners, exhibitors, and
breeders to take actions that would exempt them from the
prohibitions, the bill contains intergovernmental and
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA).
Although CBO cannot estimate the cost to comply with some
of the bill's mandates, we expect the aggregate cost of the
mandates, which would include both lost income and additional
expenses to comply with the bill's requirements, would not
exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($92 million
and $184 million respectively, in 2022, adjusted annually for
inflation).
The bill would establish different requirements for
entities licensed by USDA to possess, exhibit, and breed big
cats; for wildlife sanctuaries; and for all other owners to
be eligible for an exemption from the prohibitions.
Approximately 340 facilities, both public and private, are
licensed by USDA to possess, exhibit, and breed big cats.
To qualify for an exemption from the bill's prohibitions,
exhibitors would be required to:
Prohibit public contact, with limited exceptions, with the
big cats; and
Maintain a 15-foot gap between the public and the animals
or erect a permanent barrier.
Approximately 30 exhibitors, including public zoos, allow
physical contact with big cats through seasonal encounters
with the animals, and about 150 mostly privately-owned
facilities host or participate in special fundraising events
that allow some form of encounter with the animals.
CBO expects that prohibiting contact with the cats (or
keeping the 15-foot gap) would decrease the financial success
of these events. Using information provided by conservation
groups and industry sources, CBO estimates that the cost of
prohibiting or limiting these activities, in the form of
foregone income, would be about $80 million each year.
CBO has no data about the physical characteristics of
exhibition settings or the ability of licensed exhibitors who
wish to continue public exposure to the big cats to meet the
new setback and barrier requirements. Thus, CBO cannot
estimate the cost to comply with the exemption.
H.R. 263 would prohibit wildlife sanctuaries from
transporting and displaying their big cats off site. CBO has
no data on the number of sanctuaries that transport and
display big cats, or the income stemming from that activity,
and thus cannot estimate the cost of this prohibition.
The bill would require all other entities that possess big
cats born before enactment to register the animals with USFWS
if they want to be exempted from the bill's prohibitions. CBO
cannot precisely estimate the cost of this mandate because
regulations implementing the bill, including the cost to
register the animals, have not been developed and the number
of animals that would need to be registered is unknown. But
based on information from animal welfare organizations, CBO
expects the aggregate costs to be small.
Finally, to be eligible for the exemption, those owners
also would be prohibited from breeding or selling their cats.
Approximately 200 cubs are traded or sold each year at value
of roughly $8,000 per animal, according to industry sources;
many of those cubs are born in facilities that would be
unable to continue breeding big cats. CBO estimates the cost
of the breeding prohibition would be less than $1.6 million
per year.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Lilia Ledezma
(for federal costs) and Fiona Forrester (for mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director
of Budget Analysis.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Illinois, Mr.
Quigley, on his work on this bill, and I urge all Members to vote
``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 263. There are a lot of
things the gentleman from Hawaii said that I think me, and a lot of
other Republicans would agree on about what needs to happen as far as
the outcomes of regulating big cats. But the devil is in the details,
and that is what I hope to show today, that the details and the process
and the procedures that the policy will create with this Democrat bill
are not what is best for this policy.
Today's consideration of H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act,
follows action last month by the Committee on Natural Resources, where
this bill passed on a party-line vote after 2 days of lengthy markup.
At a time when gas prices were setting record highs on a near daily
basis, the Committee on Natural Resources considered big cat
legislation, once again, failing to address the economic and energy
crisis facing Americans. At that time, committee Republicans offered
several amendments aimed at reminding our majority that we should be
focused on reducing energy and food prices, not on exotic pet
ownership.
Rather than address the real crisis of the day, Democrats shut down
debate on our amendments and forced a vote on final passage of this
bill.
So here we are, once again, considering this big cats bill in what
looks to be a very crowded legislative week, a week that does not focus
on energy prices and inflation, even when gas is still averaging an
unbearable and unacceptable $4.50 per gallon.
Versions of this bill have been around since the 112th Congress,
begging the question of why, if it is such a good idea, has it not been
enacted over the last decade. Two clear reasons are that it would
create a new regulatory framework and strip away States' rights.
The bill before us today is aimed at regulating the private ownership
of so-called big cats by creating a new and duplicative regulatory
authority at the Department of the Interior.
The legislation is a considerable expansion of Federal regulation
under the Lacey Act. In 2003, Congress amended the Lacey Act to make it
illegal to import, export, buy, sell, transport, receive, or acquire
certain live big cats across State lines or the U.S. border. Interstate
trade. The bill proposed by my friends across the aisle regulates big
cats from the Federal level or an intrastate level, an area where State
laws are already in place to handle this.
The Lacey Act historically deals with interstate and international
commerce on endangered or injurious wildlife, and the 2003 provisions
specifically state that nothing in the act will supersede State laws,
but here we are today taking another step to supersede State laws.
This bill would expand the Lacey Act by blatantly overriding State
law and enforcing intrastate regulation of big cats.
It would require big cats exhibited at USDA-licensed or USDA-
registered facilities be at least 15 feet from the public or behind a
permanent barrier, irrespective of State laws. It would end new private
ownership of big cats, and it would mandate all big cats be registered
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 180 days or risk having
the Federal Government confiscate their animal and impose criminal
fines and penalties.
It would require big cat owners to certify that they will not breed,
acquire, or sell any big cats, and would prohibit direct public
contact.
All these mandates would supersede State authority and duplicate
existing Federal Government regulation.
Not only would this bill expand the Fish and Wildlife Service
authorities, but it would overlay the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
responsibilities, which already regulates the treatment of big cats in
research and exhibition pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act of 1966.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, at the USDA
already has inspectors and law enforcement officers in place that are
experts in animal welfare issues. But this bill ignores that existing
regulatory framework and would create a new regulatory system that the
Congressional Budget Office estimates would lead to $80 million in
foregone revenue from current USDA licensed facilities.
{time} 1530
The result of this bill would be that USDA-licensed facilities will
be regulated by both APHIS under USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service
under the Department of the Interior.
My staff and I have spent considerable time on this issue. One of our
first questions was: Why not just work with the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees under the jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare
Act?
[[Page H7391]]
The response we received was an admission that the bill's outside
proponents would rather work through the Committee on Natural Resources
than the Committee on Agriculture. This is a classic case of venue
shopping.
Creating two regulatory frameworks and dual Federal agency management
superseding existing State regulation will create confusion, waste
taxpayer dollars, and risk failing to adequately regulate these
facilities at all.
There is a simple fix to the issues that exist. For that reason, I
offered an amendment at our markup that will move the authorities
proposed by H.R. 263 into the current USDA framework without
superseding State authorities. That commonsense alternative was,
unfortunately, rejected on a party-line vote, and unfortunately, it was
not allowed to be considered today during the debate in the full House
of Representatives. I would dare say that had we adopted that
amendment, this bill would be on the suspension calendar.
While I agree that we want to reduce dangerous encounters between the
public and big cats, I cannot support this bill because it is an
overreaching, duplicative, and precedent-setting proposal that has
already served as a blueprint for pending legislation on other species.
We need to work within existing authorities, not create new and
duplicative ones. More importantly, we need to focus on the crises
facing Americans, including staggering inflation and the high price of
energy, not big cats.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 263, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, to my colleague's initial comments as to
energy and the economy, nobody denies the critical importance of those
issues, and, yes, of course, we all should be working collectively on
those particular issues.
But by that measure, frankly, I would have wished that more of my
colleagues on the other side would have voted for the bill immediately
prior to this, which is a major issue and initiative to solve our
supply chains and to take care of our national defense in terms of our
chips. Also, by the measure that he outlines, we should not have
addressed other critical issues in our country--for example, gun
violence, women's rights, and civil rights. Of course, we should have
done that.
The fact of the matter is that this Congress must and can address the
many challenges of our country, and, yes, those challenges include, for
this particular hour, the danger posed to our public and our law
enforcement communities by unregulated big cats.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Quigley), the author of this legislation.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I indeed rise in strong support of my bill,
H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act.
In the 116th Congress, we passed this legislation overwhelmingly with
a vote of 272-114. So, apparently, there are a significant number of
Republicans, at least a quarter of the caucus, that think this is a
good idea.
Sadly, the Senate didn't take the bill up then, but since that vote,
we have been able to work with our colleagues in the House and Senate
to ensure we don't forget this important legislation because law
enforcement and our communities deserve better.
Today, I am grateful that this body has had an opportunity to vote on
this bill once again, and I am grateful to Mr. Grijalva and the House
Natural Resources Committee for their continued support and their
efforts to protect our neighborhoods from the threat of wild animals
being held captive in dangerous conditions.
This legislation is about public safety and the safety of our first
responders. Indeed, it is inherently inhumane and dangerous to keep big
cats in private residences.
In 2011, as Mr. Case detailed, more than 50 animals were released
from their enclosures into the streets of Zanesville, Ohio: 18 tigers,
3 cougars, and 17 lions. This was just one horrific example of how
first responders in our communities are put in danger when big cats are
held captive in substandard living conditions by private, unregistered,
unprepared owners.
The Big Cat Public Safety Act has been endorsed by the Fraternal
Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Small and
Rural Law Enforcement Executives Association, and numerous State and
local law enforcement agencies because 500-pound carnivores pose a
serious and very real threat.
There have been over 740 serious safety incidents, including hundreds
of maulings and 25 human deaths in the U.S. since 1990.
Lions and tigers do not belong in urban apartments or in cages in
suburban backyards. Private citizens simply do not have the resources
to care for dangerous animals that were meant to roam hundreds of
square miles.
This bill is supported by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums,
which represents over 235 accredited zoos and aquariums across the
country and abroad, as well as the Humane Society of the United States,
and countless other animal welfare organizations because big cats are
wild animals that inherently suffer when they are kept as pets in these
substandard living conditions.
This bill should be supported by every American because, right now,
taxpayers shoulder the cost of monitoring and regulating private
owners, and when big cats are rescued from horrific conditions or
simply abandoned by overwhelmed owners, they pay for the care and
feeding of these cats.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all 258 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle
who support this bill, especially my friend, Representative Brian
Fitzpatrick, who has been a leader on this issue for many years. I urge
every Member to stand with law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I want to add to what my colleague, Mr. Case, said about
the challenges this country faces. If we were to argue that we should
only focus on the top one or two issues in our minds at that time, the
hundreds of other issues that this country and our world face would be
set aside. Indeed, in this case, we would tell law enforcement: Yes, we
know these animals put you at risk, but we want to work on these other
priorities.
We can and must be able to do many things and meet all the challenges
this country faces. We have that ability, and we are showing it right
now. We passed landmark infrastructure legislation, gun safety
legislation, and, today, CHIPS. God willing, very soon we will be
dealing with infrastructure and the ability to negotiate prescription
drug prices.
It is a complicated world, but we can't say in response: Well, we are
only going to deal with the top one or two.
We can do better, and we must.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we were just wanting a hearing on addressing the energy
crisis that is facing our country, and we have yet to have that. We
have continued to see development of energy on Federal lands put to a
halt by this administration, and we are still waiting for when we are
going to have that first hearing to address that issue.
While it is unfortunate that 18 big cats and 49 animals escaped and
had to be put down by police officers in Zanesville, Ohio, that was in
2011. It is unclear how this bill would have prevented the situation,
for the owner committed suicide after letting all of his animals out of
their pens.
Actually, if this bill was based on putting the authority under
APHIS, where they already have law enforcement and the infrastructure
and the structure in place to enforce the regulations, it probably
would have had a better chance of stopping this than the language in
the current bill does.
No one wants to have people put in danger through escaped big cats,
but enacting duplicative Federal authorities under the Lacey Act and a
new agency is totally unnecessary. Any new authorities at the Federal
level should rest with APHIS.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
LaMalfa), who serves on the Agriculture Committee and can talk about
why this bill should have been under APHIS.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas, the
ranking member on the Committee on Natural Resources.
Indeed, I have enjoyed time spent on both of the committees we are
talking
[[Page H7392]]
about here, Agriculture and Natural Resources. But what we are talking
about here today is something already covered by current law.
It already prohibits the import, export, transport, sale, receipt,
acquisition, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce of big cats.
It allows exceptions for entities that are federally licensed by USDA,
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, such as
small family-run zoos.
The trade of big cats, and all federally licensed zoological
facilities, are regulated under the Animal Welfare Act, as mentioned,
which placed USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, known
as APHIS, in charge of hiring inspectors and law enforcement officers
who are experts at animal welfare issues.
This bill ignores existing regulatory framework and creates an
additional regulatory system by adding the Department of the Interior's
Fish and Wildlife Service into the mix.
So, it creates a duplicative regulatory structure and supersedes
State law as well. It would mandate all persons or entities that
currently possess big cats to register each animal with the Fish and
Wildlife Service within 180 days of enactment of this in order to keep
their animals.
Some supporters of this bill have admitted it would indeed create a
duplicative Federal process at the Fish and Wildlife Service because
proponents would rather, as mentioned, work through the Committee on
Natural Resources than through the Committee on Agriculture, which is
its current jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the calendar. There are somewhere around
40 legislative days left of this session. Getting both committees to
have to do this work--obviously, they pushed it through already--but
let's take that to an agency level. Now, whether APHIS can do the job,
do we want to add Fish and Wildlife to that?
I have issues in my own district in California, where Fish and
Wildlife needs to do more work on analyzing what the effects of their
mandates are on water in my State and my neighboring State. They are
entering into even more responsibility that is unneeded.
My colleague's amendment would have perfectly dovetailed into what we
are talking about here and kept it in the jurisdiction where it needs
to be instead of creating more bureaucracy and more effort by already
overstretched government agencies that don't have the personnel to
cover some of the responsibilities they already have.
Let's look at what we are looking at priority-wise.
Yes, we are supposed to be able to walk and chew gum and do other
things around here, but why are we creating double effort from already
stretched agencies still sometimes sitting in COVID caves, not getting
the job done? Adding more, that is unnecessary.
It would have been very simple to have a clean bill here and, I
think, some bipartisan effort, but it has all blown up on us here with
having to have a duplicative effort.
I think, unfortunately, what good could have come from H.R. 263 is
lost in a set of priorities that are just trying to make it easier to
increase the bureaucracy. That is pretty sad because we want to see a
good outcome here for these animals and for the people who enjoy them
and would like to continue to enjoy them.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, to the comments of my colleague and friend
from California, he says that this situation of private possession of
big cats is already covered by current law. That is incorrect. They are
not regulated under Federal law. The private possession is not
regulated, nor is the private utilization and exploitation covered by
current law.
He complains that this would set up a duplicative environment.
Neither USDA nor the Fish and Wildlife Service is regulating in this
area right now.
So, it is a question, if one accepts the premise of which way you go
in terms of who is best to regulate it, it is not going to duplicate
anything that either of them does, but it will complement more
accurately what the Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for, which
is, number one, enforcement of the Lacey Act, which this is a natural
extension of, in which we focus on the trade and endangered species and
the impact of that trade not only on the public safety but on the
survival of those species around the world.
{time} 1545
Number one, the Fish and Wildlife Service does, in fact, deal with
endangered species. In fact, it is our primary agency for doing so. So
this is a judgment that the Fish and Wildlife Service is the
appropriate agency as opposed to the USDA which has a different
direction that it takes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva), who is the chair of the full committee.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Case for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety
Act. The bill is a long-overdue fix to a public safety and animal
welfare problem that has been with us for too long.
I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my
Republican friends, that not only is it duplicative, but it is
unnecessary and a waste of time. Unfortunately, my colleagues have
undertaken a potted plant strategy in terms of how they do business in
the House: just water us, we are just going to sit there, and we are
not going to do nothing. They are using legislation like this one to
sustain a blame game more political than substantive regarding
decisions being made by the administration or the majority in this
House. I understand that. But it is a selective blame game.
We don't talk about the threat to our democracy, we don't talk about
the criminalization of a woman's right to make health decisions, and we
don't talk about the creeping authoritarianism that we see in our
country. We don't talk about those things. I think that if we are going
to have a discussion and assess blame, that the discussion is open on
all sides.
So there are more big cats in private ownership and in captivity than
in the wild. Private ownership of tigers, lions, leopards, and other
big cats does absolutely nothing to help these endangered and
threatened species recover in the wild.
To make matters worse, it poses a threat to first responders and the
public who often don't even know they are in a community until an
emergency happens.
State laws banning or regulating big cats vary greatly, and
enforcement varies greatly. There is no Federal policy regarding the
private possession of big cats, many of which are bred for cub petting
and photo opportunities and then sold into private possession once they
are too old for photo ops.
Contrary to what we have heard today, the USDA does not have
jurisdiction over private ownership of big cats. Instead, the Fish and
Wildlife Service is tasked with banning the breeding and possession of
big cats under the Lacey Act, which is a natural extension of the work
the Fish and Wildlife Service already does to regulate the breeding of
ESA-listed species.
So it is germane to our committee, it is where it should be, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service is the appropriate agency with both the
experiences and the linkages to do this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, for making a point that we have made, and that is
that there are bigger issues to talk about.
Unfortunately, the issues that my friend mentioned are not under the
jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources Committee. But energy
production on Federal lands and Federal waters are big issues that are
in the jurisdiction of our committee. So is mining all the critical
resources, the elements and minerals, that are going to be needed to
electrify the economy.
Regarding the big CHIPS bill that was just passed on the floor here,
a lot of the ingredients that go into those chips actually come from
China. One hundred percent of them come from China. So there are bigger
issues that we need to talk about.
Really, this bill shouldn't be taking all of this time, and it
wouldn't have taken all of this time if the majority had just worked
with us a little bit.
[[Page H7393]]
If they had done the commonsense thing and had put the jurisdiction
of regulating these cats under APHIS where it belongs, as I said
before, we would probably have this bill on the suspension calendar and
we would all be talking about what a good piece of legislation it is
and how it will benefit the country.
But when we take a simple issue and create a new Federal bureaucracy
and give authorities to an agency, that I don't even think wants these
authorities much less needs these authorities, is something we have to
make an issue of.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Hice).
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the great leadership
of the ranking member from Arkansas. I appreciate his yielding some
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise in opposition to the Big Cat Public
Safety Act.
Let it be known that I also rise in opposition to the complete lack
of decorum demonstrated by the majority in today's vote on the CHIPS
bill. This Chamber is supposed to be a deliberative body governed by
rules and norms agreed to by all the Members. The majority has made a
mockery of those rules and norms today.
The complete disregard for the minority is what they showed today,
and that is upsetting and disturbing. It is certainly no way to run the
House, Mr. Speaker.
Turning to this legislation at hand, it seems as if the Democrats are
prioritizing literally pet projects of a reality TV star instead of
considering legislation that would benefit the American people during
this time of economic crisis.
Natural Resources Committee Democrats have spent their time marking
up legislation like this instead of working on bills that would lower
the cost of gas for millions of Americans.
As the ranking member has referenced several times, our constituents
sent us here to represent them and to work together to solve the issues
that they are facing and that our Nation is facing. Right now, they are
facing things like the cost of gasoline and energy production, and we
are doing nothing about that in the Natural Resources Committee.
Legislation like this does not reflect the interests or the concerns
of the American people.
We have Americans literally suffering right now economically, and we
are debating big cats? Really?
Of all the things that are important, we are in here talking about
big cats.
We have an administration right now gaslighting the American people
by trying to change the definition of a recession which we are
experiencing.
It is time for us to work on legislation that actually helps the
American people.
Because of the actions of President Biden and the Democrats,
Americans are suffering from the worst inflation in over four decades
and are now facing the beginning of a recession. It is time for
Congress to work on critical legislation and stop wasteful and untimely
bills like this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 263, the Big Cat
Public Safety Act. Mr. Speaker, you have got to be kidding me. This is
ridiculous.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend and colleague from Georgia, I
simply want to read a list of some of the endorsers of this particular
legislation.
These are all members of law enforcement: The National Sheriffs'
Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Sheriffs' Association
of Texas, the Maine Sheriffs' Association, the West Virginia Sheriffs'
Association, the Arkansas Sheriffs' Association, the Kansas Sheriffs'
Association, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association, the Buckeye State
Sheriffs' Association of Ohio, the Vermont Sheriffs' Association, and
the Iowa State Sheriffs' Association.
I have gotten to four lines of a whole bunch of other endorsements
from law enforcement.
Clearly, they regard this as one of the areas that we should address
for this country out of the many challenges that we face. So I do think
it is appropriate that we devote just a little bit of time to what is
concerning them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 263, the Big Cat
Public Safety Act, as a proud cosponsor of this legislation for many
years.
Big cats such as lions, tigers, panthers, and others deserve to live
in the wild or in a safe and secure refuge like Big Cat Rescue back
home in Tampa.
But too often these beautiful creatures are privately owned and
exploited for profit in the exotic pet trade where they are owned by
unfit individuals and kept in awful conditions. That is why we must
pass the Big Cat Public Safety Act. It would be a catastrophe if we did
not pass it.
Big cats are wild animals. They do not belong in backyards and
garages and should not be in regular contact with people unsuited to
take care of them. It is dangerous as well. We have seen numerous law
enforcement and emergency calls due to the irresponsible private
ownership of big cats fueled by those who are making money off of their
suffering.
So I am proud to have advocated for this legislation with many of the
cool cats and kittens, volunteers, and supporters of Big Cat Rescue in
Tampa.
I thank Representative Quigley and the Natural Resources Committee
Chair Grijalva for moving to protect big cats from exploitation.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same with a
big ``yes'' vote on the Big Cat Public Safety Act.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find this a bit amusing that the proponents of this
bill are rolling out all the law enforcement agencies that are
supportive of the bill.
And why wouldn't they be?
Why would they care which Federal agency deals with it?
They just don't want to have to deal with the problem themselves. So,
sure, they support this bill because it addresses a problem that they
are having to deal with now. But I doubt they have looked past the
point that it is creating a new Federal agency that doesn't affect
their budgets, it is creating a new Federal agency that makes things
duplicative, it doesn't affect their operations, and I am quite
certain, had we put the amendment in to put this under APHIS, we would
still have all those law enforcement agencies supporting this bill. So,
Mr. Speaker, you have to take that for what it is worth.
H.R. 263 is a template that is already being used to regulate other
animals. This is the weaponization of the Lacey Act. USDA does have
jurisdiction over privately owned cats. The USDA-licensed facilities
are not government-owned. So every time the logic trail that you go
down about why should this regulation be under U.S. Fish and Wildlife
or under the Department of the Interior, it comes back to there is no
logic. It is just that somebody had an agenda to put it under an agency
that is not equipped right now and doesn't have the personnel right now
to enforce it.
So it is creating a new authorization that, I believe, is going to
have happen to it what happens to many well-intended laws. They get
weaponized to go after something that they originally weren't set up to
go after.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Fulcher).
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee
on Natural Resources from the State of Arkansas.
Mr. Speaker, here we are, yet again, discussing the most important
issue of our day: cats. Not just any cats, but big cats.
My constituents have been hammering my office about this issue.
Thankfully, my Democrat colleagues have been listening.
Of course, I jest.
I shouldn't be allowing this issue to be taking my time, and neither
should you, Mr. Speaker.
My constituents are not talking about big cats. There are some
misplaced priorities here. They are talking about skyrocketing food and
energy prices and the never-ending deficit spending from this
Democratic Congress. That is what is going on in my district.
Here is another big concern for Idaho and across the West: wildfire.
Mr. Speaker, 5.6 million acres--that is million with an M--have
burned just
[[Page H7394]]
this year to date. For those of you who don't live in the West or are
not familiar with it, wildfire is what you get when you choke off
access to your forests and regulate away the ability to properly manage
your land. That is what the current leadership is doing. Yet, here we
are talking about big cats.
Do I dare mention the southern border crisis?
There were 207,416 apprehensions last month alone with who knows how
many got-aways, how much sex trafficking, or how much illegal
narcotics. But don't worry. Congress is working on big cats.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of things on the agenda here for the
last few months, and there are many things that are burning in the
minds of our constituents and the people whom we serve.
The people whom we serve deserve better. The people whom we serve are
not talking about the things that we are. But yet here we are working
through things that simply do not matter in the scheme of everything
else going on right now.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, to the ranking member's
comments, this is an informed judgment about which of two existing
Federal agencies is more appropriate to manage and administer what, I
believe, if I hear the ranking member correctly, is our common goal,
our common goal of ending the status quo as to the private possession
and exploitation of big cats.
{time} 1600
So this is a judgment that we disagree on. I have articulated our
reasons why Fish and Wildlife is the better one. He has his view of
USDA. It is a policy call for us to make. But we are not disagreeing
with the overall goal, I don't believe.
His amendment, by the way, not only--his proposed amendment not only
proposed to put it in USDA, but also to essentially preempt the
preemption of Federal law. So, in other words, there is a jumble of
State laws out there, ranging from good, solid State laws, to no State
laws; and that creates a real complicated and very confusing puzzle for
all kinds of people, again, including law enforcement.
So you cannot apply a Federal standard across the country with one
sentence, and then, in the next sentence say, oh, by the way, any State
can do anything it wants. That doesn't make any sense at all.
So either we go in with the Federal standard, or we don't go there at
all. Our judgment under this law is that we need to go there with a
Federal standard.
As to my colleague's comments on priorities, I would, again, refer to
my earlier comments. Those are critical priorities that we are all
trying to address.
Certainly, I haven't checked the roll call vote on the bill that we
just passed, CHIPS, but I hope, if they are truly interested and
focused on inflation, on energy, on self-sufficiency in our country,
then I would hope that I saw a ``yes'' vote for them on one of the most
major pieces of legislation that we will be passing and the President
will be signing shortly to end our supply chain reliance on places like
China.
My colleague also knows that we have coming up a major wildfire bill
to address that challenge that we all agree is a critical challenge for
our country, and I certainly hope that he will view that bill favorably
as well, if, in fact, we all have that shared goal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Bentz).
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the Big Cat Public
Safety Act. I have some concerns.
First, this is not what most Americans are concerned about right now.
People outside of the Beltway are worried about the cost of living.
Food prices are way up. Gas prices are nearly double what they were
last year. Crime is skyrocketing. Drought and wildfire are ravaging my
State of Oregon, and the Biden administration denies responsibility;
and, worse, has no plan.
Americans aren't fooled. They know that the priority number one
should be lowering the cost of living.
Second, I have concerns about the Big Cat bill itself. This is a
State issue, not a Federal issue. Most States already have restrictions
on keeping big cats as pets, if not outright bans. In fact, 38 States
have already addressed the issue.
For example, my home State of Oregon has already banned private
possession of big cats. Other States can legislate on this issue as
they see fit. It is not appropriate for Congress to intervene, and this
would certainly be an improper expansion of the Lacey Act.
We should, instead, focus upon the most important issues facing our
Nation: inflation, the price of fuel, wildfire, and drought.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am
prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to point out that it has been argued that we have got a
hodgepodge of laws across the State, or across the country, and that is
what makes America great is that we can have different laws that are
tailored to different regions of the country.
But there are two Federal laws regulating exotic animals, and they
are already on the books. The Captive Wildlife Society Act governs
interstate commerce of big cats, and the Animal Welfare Act governs big
cat enterprises.
H.R. 263 would overlay existing exotic animal laws, further
complicating Federal law and explicitly superseding State laws. If a
new Federal law is necessary--I will say it again--the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, within USDA, has the expertise and
knowledge to carry out these responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, this is a simple issue. It is an issue that we shouldn't even
be having to debate like this. It should be on suspension; but it just
shows you how there has been an unwillingness to work on commonsense
solutions to a simple problem.
It took up 2 days of committee debate when we could have been talking
about energy; when we could have been talking about high inflation
prices; when we could have been talking about a water crisis in the
West, the drought.
Mr. Speaker, there are 600,000 acres of land laying fallow in
California this summer because they don't have water. That has not even
come up for one debate in our Natural Resources Committee.
The gentleman talked about the crisis at the southern border. Forty
percent of the southern border is public lands, which falls under the
jurisdiction of our committee. We have not had a single discussion
about it.
We spent 2 days talking about big cats. We are spending valuable
floor time before we split for the August break debating big cats. And
we are debating an issue that could have been resolved simply.
I hope that going forward, I hope we can work on these issues in a
way that is better for the country; that is not trying to create some
new bureaucracy that can be used to achieve other goals. And I hope
that my colleagues will vote against H.R. 263.
If it somehow gets out of the House, I hope the Senate will not pass
it and maybe, in the next Congress, we can come back with commonsense
legislation that addresses this issue; puts the jurisdictions under the
right authorities; and we can, once and for all, move on from big cats,
and we can start talking about real issues that matter to our
constituents and to the hardworking taxpayers across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, I do want to thank my colleague, the ranking member of
the full committee. He is a very good ranking member and a very good
person to work with on many challenges on our Natural Resources
Committee.
I appreciate his comments at the outset of this debate which, I
believe, reflected an agreement as to the problem and as to the goal.
We may be sitting here debating some of the implementation, but in this
Congress, if we can
[[Page H7395]]
agree on the problem and the goal, that is a step forward, and I
appreciate at least that we have that common agreement.
Yes, we do have disagreements in terms of the exact way to approach
this; specifically, which Federal agency should actually have the con
on this. We have outlined our arguments here and elsewhere, and we have
a disagreement, and that is part of the democratic process. We believe
we have the better view of that, given the Fish and Wildlife Service's
focus.
I do want to take issue with his comment that it took 2 days to
debate this bill in the Natural Resources Committee. Actually, the
debate having to do with this particular issue in the Natural Resources
Committee was far less than 2 days. In fact, I didn't add it up. It
probably amounted to 2 hours of those 2 days. The rest of it was really
debating other issues in the context of this bill.
So this is not a particularly complicated problem to grasp from the
law enforcement, from public safety, from an animal welfare
perspective, and it is not a particularly difficult problem to identify
very concise options and to make a decision on those. Those things were
vetted in the Natural Resources Committee and are being vetted on the
floor here. But to say that this took 2 days, in all due respect, is
not accurate.
I do want to comment briefly on the comment having to do with State
laws are already handling this. Yes, of course, this is always an issue
that we have in determining whether, in the context of our work here,
we should have the Federal Government apply standards or leave it to
the States.
In this particular case, we have the worst of all worlds. We have
differing State laws in terms of the private ownership and exploitation
of big cats; and we also have both Federal and State laws that both
preempt and leave it to the States.
But I would submit that the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which is
where we started on this almost 20 years ago, a Federal law that said
that we were going to, as a country, state that you can no longer
import these big cats from their homes; thus, decimating their
populations where they came from, and encouraging a trade that has led
them to the brink of extinction in most cases. We said that that is a
Federal matter, and that is what we are trying to follow.
This is only an extension of that particular act. So I think it is a
particularly worthwhile area for us to develop Federal standards and
end a lot of doubt among the States and among the Federal Government
and the States collectively and get on with the goal of protecting our
people, protecting our animals, and protecting our law enforcement.
I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The Chair understands that the amendment printed in part A of House
Report 117-444 will not be offered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WESTERMAN. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________