[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.

                          ____________________