[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 3-4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPTIVE WILDLIFE SAFETY TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 
                                  2008

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO

                                of guam

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 3, 2008

  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, in 2003, the Congress was made aware of 
the growing public safety threats created by the private ownership of 
large predatory cat species, such as lions and tigers, through numerous 
press accounts of fatal or near-fatal accidental maulings of 
unsuspecting adults and children. At the urging of a broad range of 
stakeholders which requested the Congress intercede to restrict the 
trade and ownership of these inherently wild animals, Congressman 
Howard P. McKeon and Congressman George Miller of California introduced 
the Captive Wildlife Safety Act as H.R. 1006 in the 108th Congress on 
February 27, 2003, to address these threats and to help conserve big 
cats. The bill proposed to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to 
add lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, snow leopards, clouded leopards, 
jaguars, or cougars, and all subspecies and hybrids of these species, 
to the list of ``prohibited wildlife species.'' Since the Lacey Act 
makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, buy, or possess 
fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 
violation of any Federal, State, foreign, or Native American tribal 
law, treaty or regulation, this legislation proposed to make it illegal 
in the future to purchase and hold these animals in captivity, unless 
certain exceptions are met.
  The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans of 
the Committee on Resources in the 108th Congress determined during its 
oversight hearing on the bill on June 12, 2003 that ownership of any 
large, predatory animal presents substantial risks to the owner, the 
animal, and the public at large. Ownership risks for large, carnivorous 
cats are particularly acute. Diverse stakeholders including the 
American Veterinary Medical Association, American Zoo and Aquarium 
Association, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the Humane Society of 
the United States all publicly stated that big cats cannot be humanely 
maintained without specific expertise, specialized equipment and proper 
facilities to meet the requisite nutritional, physical and 
environmental demands of the animals. Additionally, large cats remain 
extremely expensive animals to feed and maintain, a fiscal constraint 
which often results in animals being abandoned or euthanized by owners 
once they grow into maturity. Sadly, few zoos are able to take 
abandoned large cats due to space constraints and genetic diversity 
concerns and few licensed animal sanctuaries exist in the United States 
to care for large carnivores.
  Stakeholders also underscored the point that exotic large cats, 
because they are powerful predatory animals which can react 
unpredictably, also pose significant public safety threats. This claim 
was made evident by the tragic October 3, 2003 mauling of Roy Horn--one 
half of the famed Las Vegas circus duo of Siegfried and Roy--by one of 
their act's hybrid white tigers. The problem is further compounded by 
the limited expertise available in local communities to successfully 
re-capture or humanely sedate a large cat once it has escaped or been 
provoked, intentionally or not, to attack.
  Following the leadership of then-ranking Democrat member, Congressman 
Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and former Chairman, Richard W. Pombo of 
California, the Committee on Resources reported favorably this 
bipartisan, non-controversial legislation to prohibit for the first 
time interstate and foreign commerce in large predatory cats. This 
widely supported legislation subsequently cleared the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 419-0 on November 19, 2003, and was signed 
into law by President George W. Bush on December 19, 2003, Public Law 
108-191. While not authorizing an outright ban on the private ownership 
of large cats, this important legislation was considered a reasonable 
first step in limiting the availability and desirability of these 
animals in the pet trade, as well as a valuable tool in efforts to shut 
down the illegal trade in tiger parts and products that maintain a 
lucrative traditional medicine black market in Asia.
  Two important events have transpired in the intervening period since 
the enactment of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. First, on August 16, 
2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published in the Federal 
Register regulations to implement the act, 72 FR 45938. Although 
overdue, this was an important milestone towards achieving the goals of 
the act. The second event, related to the first, was the identification 
by the Service during its rulemaking of a technical error in the act 
which complicates its enforcement.
  Specifically, under the Lacey Act criminal wildlife trafficking 
prohibitions are built upon a ``two-step'' prohibition scheme. Under 
section 3372(a), each trafficking violation--with the exception of 
violations of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act--requires proof of two 
separate steps involving the wildlife at issue: first, the wildlife 
must be taken, possessed, transported or sold by someone in violation 
of existing laws or treaties and, second, the wildlife must be 
subsequently imported, exported, transported, sold, received, acquired 
or purchased. These two steps cannot be collapsed by prosecutors into 
one step or act committed by the defendant. As enacted, the Captive 
Wildlife Safety Act is a one-step offense within a section of the Lacey 
Act that presumes two-step violations. Consequently, placement of 
amendments made by the Captive Wildlife Safety Act in this section of 
the Lacey Act could make violations of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act 
potentially difficult to enforce in court because some big cats may be 
legally possessed to begin with.
  In order to clarify the enforcement provisions of the Captive 
Wildlife Safety Act, I introduced today with my colleague from South 
Carolina and the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Congressman Henry Brown, the Captive 
Wildlife Safety Act Technical Amendments Act of 2007. This bill, which 
is based on legislation which cleared the Senate during the 109th 
Congress, S. 1415, and extensive consultations with officials at the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Justice, 
would amend the appropriate sections of the Lacey Act to decouple 
enforcement of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act from the two-step 
analysis. This legislation also would make the necessary clarifying 
amendments to the civil and criminal penalties sections of the Lacey 
Act to reflect this correction. Officials of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service have assured me that these corrections will make the Captive 
Wildlife Safety Act more readily enforceable, comprehensible, and 
aligned with the Act's intent to stop trade in dangerous big cats. I 
have been also assured that should this bill become law the agency will 
not have to revise its regulations implementing the Captive Wildlife 
Safety Act.
  It is also important to note that all exemptions under the existing 
Captive Wildlife Safety Act would remain unchanged and in effect. That 
means that any licensed, registered or federally-inspected zoo, circus, 
research facility, or aquarium; any individuals accredited by the 
American Sanctuary Association or Association of Sanctuaries; any State 
college, university or agency; any State-licensed wildlife

[[Page 4]]

rehabilitators or veterinarians; any incorporated humane society, 
animal shelter, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals; 
and, any federally-licensed and inspected breeder or dealer and 
individuals transporting a wildlife animal to an exempted person or 
facility, would remain outside the scope of the Captive Wildlife Safety 
Act. Also, nothing in the bill I have introduced today would preempt or 
supersede any State or territory's authority to regulate wildlife 
within its borders.
  I urge my colleagues to support this non-controversial legislation to 
ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is able to clamp down on 
the illegal trade in big cats. Only two weeks ago the Los Angeles Times 
reported that a wildlife caretaker at the Shambala Preserve in 
California had been attacked and severely injured by a 4-year old 
captive tiger. This tragic event should serve to remind all of us that 
even under expert care, large predatory cats remain a significant 
threat to public safety that can, and should, be tightly controlled.

                          ____________________