[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 204 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H6131-H6134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BIG CAT PUBLIC SAFETY ACT

  Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1380) 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, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1380

       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 by striking ``section 2(a)'' 
     and inserting ``section 2(b)''.
       (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.--It is unlawful for any person to import, 
     export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in 
     interstate or foreign commerce, or in a manner substantially 
     affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or to 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;
       ``(ii) ensures that during public exhibition of a lion 
     (Panthera leo), tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard (Panthera 
     pardus), snow leopard (Uncia uncia), jaguar (Panthera onca),

[[Page H6132]]

     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 subsection (e) of 
     section 3 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 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).''.

     SEC. 7. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Case) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Hawaii?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1380, the Big 
Cat Public Safety Act.
  At the beginning of this hectic year, many Americans were introduced 
to the issue before us today and this legislation for the first time 
through the ``Tiger King,'' which in addition to a plethora of colorful 
real-life characters also shined a spotlight on the dark side of 
keeping lions, tigers, and other big cats in captivity.
  The Big Cat Public Safety Act ends the ownership of big cats as pets 
and prohibits exhibitors from allowing public contact with big cats, 
including cubs.
  In 2003, Congress unanimously passed the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, 
which amended the Lacey Act to prohibit the import, export, buying, 
selling, transport, receiving, or acquisition of big cats across States 
to the U.S. border. However, the existing law did not include 
prohibitions for the private possession or breeding of big cats.
  Currently, State laws vary quite a bit. Some States have no 
restrictions; some simply require registration; and some completely 
prohibit ownership of big cats as pets.
  The Big Cat Public Safety Act builds on the Captive Wildlife Safety 
Act by making it illegal to privately possess or breed lions, tigers, 
leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, cougars, or any hybrid. The bill is 
narrowly focused on privately owned animals and includes exemptions for 
exhibitors with U.S. Department of Agriculture class C licenses, such 
as zoos, State universities, and sanctuaries.
  This bill, championed by my colleague, Representative   Mike Quigley, 
along with an astounding 230 cosponsors, is a commonsense solution to 
address public safety and animal abuse concerns. It enjoys wide 
bipartisan support, and it is time we passed it into law.
  It is unknown how many big cats, including tigers, lions, jaguars, 
leopards, cougars, and hybrids, are currently kept in private ownership 
in the United States, but estimates are in the range of 5,000 to 
10,000. That means an average of up to 200 big cats are in private 
ownership in every State in America.
  I don't know about you, Madam Speaker, but I wouldn't feel safe with 
my children or grandchildren living next door to a tiger, nor does that 
seem humane for the animals whose ancestors roamed vast expanses of the 
savannahs and jungles.
  As we saw in ``Tiger King,'' the top priority for private big cat 
owners is not the best interests of animals or public safety but rather 
greed, profit, or glory.
  Since 1990, there have been around 300 dangerous incidents involving 
big cats in the United States--including one just today--that have 
resulted in human injuries, mauling, and even death. When these 
incidents occur, first responders are also put at risk since they are 
not trained or equipped to handle situations involving big cats.
  Madam Speaker, I hope you can all agree with me that the private 
ownership of big cats opens the door for rampant animal abuse and also 
presents a dangerous and significant risk to public safety.
  This bill is endorsed by over 27 organizations, including the 
Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the National Sheriffs' 
Association. Of special note as well is that the Zoological Association 
of America, which previously opposed this measure, has withdrawn its 
opposition and is now neutral because its board has now banned public 
contact with big cats at its accredited zoos.
  Please join me in voting for this legislation to stop animal abuse 
and bad actors like those we saw in ``Tiger King.'' In the midst of a 
roller coaster of a year, here is one thing we can do to reduce the 
mayhem.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1380, 
the Big Cat Public Safety Act, and I am grateful for the bipartisan 
support it has received. I also want to thank my staffer, Max, who 
worked so hard on this measure.
  The Big Cat Public Safety Act has been endorsed by the Fraternal 
Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and numerous other 
State and local law enforcement agencies because 500-pound carnivores 
pose a serious and very real threat to first responders, law 
enforcement officers, and entire communities around the country. The 
photo behind me is not staged.

[[Page H6133]]

  This bill is also endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States 
and countless other animal welfare organizations because lions and 
tigers do not belong in urban apartments or in cages in suburban 
backyards and because private citizens simply do not have the resources 
to care for dangerous animals that are meant to roam over hundreds of 
square miles.
  As was stated, this bill is supported by the AGA and is not opposed 
by the Zoological Association of America, the trade association for 
small roadside-type zoos, because ripping newborn cubs from their 
mothers moments after their birth to use them as props in photos is 
already cruel enough, but once they are too big to be safely held, 
brutally killing them is just wrong.

                              {time}  1930

  Nearly 65,000 Americans have signed a Change.org petition calling for 
the immediate passage of this bill because the Netflix series ``Tiger 
King'' showed the world in stark relief how exploitive, dangerous, and 
inhumane this tiny so-called industry is.
  This bill should be served 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.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the many Republican Members of Congress who 
support this bill, which is cosponsored by more than half the House.
  I urge every Member to stand with the law enforcement community and 
stand up for those that need our help but cannot ask for that. Please 
vote for this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Speaker, for too long, big cats have been 
mistreated, exploited, and abused in private roadside zoos. Private 
possession of big cats is a tremendous risk to humans as well. On 
average, a 1-year-old tiger weighs about 200 pounds and can easily harm 
or kill a human.
  These wild animals are trained to perform for paying customers, and 
at the end of the day, they are wild, dangerous animals that are a 
serious risk to humans and themselves.
  Big cats, themselves, are also at risk, as there have been countless 
reports of abuse, mistreatment, and exploitation at private zoos.
  Madam Speaker, opponents of our legislation argue that it unfairly 
targets small zoos, pitting the large against the small. To be clear, 
this legislation has nothing to do with the zoo size and does not ban 
any zoo from possessing, breeding, or exhibiting big cats. Our 
legislation prohibits zoos from allowing the public to interact with 
big cats.
  It does not in any way impact the typical model of zoos in which they 
have an exhibit of big cats on display. As long as the zoo does not 
allow direct contact between people and the public and these big cats, 
they will not be affected by this legislation.
  This practice also takes a toll on law enforcement agencies that are 
forced to respond to escapes and attacks when big cats have outgrown 
cub petting and are funneled into the hands of private citizens.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is supported by both the National Sheriffs' 
Association and the Fraternal Order of Police.
  I thank the Humane Society, Animal Wellness Action, and the Animal 
Welfare Institute for their incredible advocacy on this issue, and to 
my predecessor who worked on this bill, Congressman Jeff Denham from 
the State of California, for all of his work. And, of course, I thank 
my partner on this legislation, Congressman   Mike Quigley.
  As a member of the bipartisan Congressional Animal Caucus, we are 
committed to ensuring that our government is doing its part to promote 
animal welfare, and it is crucial that we stand up for animals, both as 
individuals and societies.
  Madam Speaker, as was pointed out, there are 230 cosponsors on this 
bill that collectively represent over 165 million Americans who support 
this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1380, 
the Big Cat Public Safety Act.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this.
  Madam Speaker, I am excited that this bill is finally making it to 
the floor. We have watched the support build while we have watched the 
case become ever stronger.
  As has been referenced by my colleagues, across the country, there 
are thousands of big cats--``exotics'' they are referred to--in terms 
of tigers and lions who are often kept by private owners in unsafe and 
abusive conditions. They are shown often bred by unlicensed exhibitors 
in basements or backyards. Not only does this cause suffering among 
these exhibit wild animals that are not meant to live under these 
conditions, but it does, as has been referenced, pose a risk to 
community safety.
  Since 1990, there have been almost 380 dangerous incidents involving 
captive big cats in 46 States and the District of Columbia, leading to 
some traumatic injuries--and even death.
  Too often, as has been referenced, it is the first responders who 
answer calls involving these animals, exposing police and fire to 
unnecessary risk. They are trained for public safety, not to deal with 
these huge and occasionally dangerous animals. State law is completely 
inadequate. It is a patchwork on this issue. Some ban private use. 
Others allow it with no questions asked. This is cruel and dangerous. 
Today, we are voting on a bill to change that.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friends, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. 
Quigley--people who have spent time advancing this issue, and finally, 
it is before us. It will restrict private ownership of big cats, reduce 
breeding, and help minimize abuse.
  As has been referenced and needs to be emphasized, this is narrowly 
focused on privately owned animals with appropriate exemptions for zoos 
and universities and sanctuaries. It can improve the lives of big cats 
and protect communities when things go wrong. These cats were never 
meant to be in captivity. Unlicensed ownership and breeding is bad for 
the animals. It is bad for the community. It doesn't advance 
conservation or education.
  Madam Speaker, I hope that we will both vote today overwhelmingly to 
end the exotic trade on big cats and focus our efforts on real, 
meaningful conservation efforts at home and abroad. I think we were all 
just horrified by what we saw with the television series, ``Tiger 
King.'' Sadly, one would think that that would be enough to motivate 
the action.
  Having worked on this issue over the years, I had some opportunity to 
be familiar with some of the players. This is something that I hope now 
is finally going to end, and it can today with our vote.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, with apologies, lions and tigers and bears, oh my. I 
have to say that before somebody else does it. But we also have to 
realize, as we are going through the kleinigkeiten of this day's 
efforts, that this is one of those kleinigkeiten coming again here. We 
should also realize that Oz was not reality, it was a movie, and that 
reality TV is not that of which should be the basis of public policy.
  This bill, contrary to what I have been hearing so far, is not about 
protecting the public from big cats. It is about hurting small, family-
run zoos across the country. It is a power play of some kind, which is 
one of the reasons why the Zoological Association of America expressed 
their grave concerns with this bill in a very pointed letter addressed 
to the committee chairman, that this represents an unwarranted Federal 
intrusion into the rights and responsibilities of wildlife exhibitors 
and will have significant negative impacts on federally licensed 
zoological facilities.
  Madam Speaker, the issue is that, under current law, anyone who has 
one of these exhibitions must obtain a class E exhibitor license, and 
that is given by the United States Department of Agriculture under the 
Animal Welfare Act. So a licensee under the Animal Welfare Act has to 
abide by all the

[[Page H6134]]

rules that govern housing and keeping and care of the animals and are 
subject to unannounced inspections under the direction of the 
Department of Agriculture. And it is doing its job. It is doing its job 
effectively and efficiently.
  Madam Speaker, this bill ignores all of that under the guise of 
animal welfare, denying responsible Federal license facilities and 
predicating these class E exemptions on animal rights ideology, not 
necessarily the policy of what has been taken during the past.
  What happens now is that this particular bill has, special interest 
groups having drafted it, now amends the Lacey Act--not the Animal 
Welfare Act, but the Lacey Act--and now has the Department of the 
Interior being the ones who are responsible for what is going on here.
  So what is illegal now under the Lacey Act changes would be legal 
under the Animal Welfare Act, which is still going to be on the books. 
If nothing else, we should actually ask those people who are 
responsible for this bill just to come clean and try and make sure that 
they write the bill so there is consistency so you don't have 
conflicting acts, because you have conflicting policy with this.
  And this bill also provides some huge loopholes for big, well-funded 
zoos and will crush those small but well-regulated private facilities. 
That is not the way we should be running that particular policy.
  Madam Speaker, the smaller facilities are well-regulated. It is done 
by the Department of Agriculture. There are specific rules and 
guidelines. The laws are specific and they are there.
  What this bill will do is put conflicting guidelines, which means, 
pass this bill, if you wish, but--well, very little chance of it 
actually going all the way, but even if you want to pass this bill, you 
are going to have to come back and fix the two because you have, now, 
two bills that are still on the books that are in conflict. So at least 
do it the right way.
  This bill was pushed by special interest groups. It is poor policy 
that is not backed by science but is backed by radical ideology, and it 
does not fit the reality of what is taking place. The Department of 
Agriculture is doing their functions properly and effectively and 
efficiently, and we should not pass this bill.
  Madam Speaker, with all the significant things we could be doing in a 
lameduck session, with all the stuff we can do with the pandemic, with 
both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate 
agreeing on so many things, so much low-hanging fruit, we could easily 
pass something that would have a major impact, something that would be 
real, or actually put the NDAA on here and do something that is real, 
or actually come to an agreement on a CR, at least, if not the 
resolutions of all our appropriations. That would be big. That would be 
sufficient. That would be worthy of us actually coming back here to the 
floor today.
  But instead, we are coming here closer to 8 o'clock at night dealing 
with the small stuff, the insignificant stuff that is not going to go 
further throughout the process, which I guess is one of the reasons I 
think we should be happy. At least we know this will be the last time 
that this will be discussed here in the Capitol building at any time.
  Madam Speaker, as a Congress, we can do much better. We ought to do 
much better. We ought not to spend our time coming up here dealing with 
the kleinigkeiten.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate, again, the comments from the ranking member, but I 
think he is out of step with the majority in this House, given the 
bipartisan nature of this particular legislation.
  A couple of quick points to answer some of his objections.
  First of all, as I mentioned earlier, the Zoological Association of 
America has withdrawn its opposition to this bill. The Zoological 
Association of America, contrary to the statement, is not opposed to 
this bill.
  Second, he talks about the guidelines by the USDA being sufficient. 
They are obviously not sufficient when the status quo across this 
country still has such a tremendous and deleterious impact on animal 
welfare, as well as presents a continued risk for public safety. As was 
noted in some of the comments earlier, in fact, we have a patchwork of 
regulation across this country; whereas, it is time for us to have one 
uniform standard across this country that would apply everywhere.
  He complains that this bill is a matter of special interest. I would 
submit, if the special interests are those special interests that are 
concerned about the welfare of animals and are concerned about public 
safety, then those are good special interests to be aligned with.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1380, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________