Providing for consideration of 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 providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4040) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend telehealth flexibilities under the Medicare program, and for other purposes.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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).......................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 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. 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.

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. 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).

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.

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. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

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?

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

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. 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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from California and my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to discuss the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4040, the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act, and H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act.

First, H.R. 4040 will extend several Medicare telehealth flexibilities that were initially utilized during the pandemic.

Telehealth has allowed many Americans to receive needed healthcare across the Nation. While my Republican colleagues and I appreciate the extension of these important programs, we believe that permanently authorizing them is the better option.

Once again, the Democrats have decided to skip the committee process and refuse Republican input or look at any possible improvements to the bill. I know that many Members will be supporting this bill, but I still must mention this missed opportunity to strengthen healthcare and telehealth, especially for rural Minnesota and rural America.

Second, H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act, would make it illegal for any person to trade, breed, or possess any prohibited wildlife species, specifically exotic big cat species like lions, tigers, snow leopards, et cetera. The bill would impose civil and criminal penalties for violators and grant the Federal Government the authority to order forfeiture of big cats held in private captivity. Many of the provisions of this legislation already exist under the USDA regulatory scheme.

More than anything, Mr. Speaker, I am wholeheartedly disappointed in how my colleagues are managing the remaining time left in this Congress. The absence of any sense of urgency to fix the real problems facing this country is incredibly frustrating.

This country is at the doorstep of a recession, but instead of addressing it, the U.S. House of Representatives is spending time on the regulation of big cats. My constituents are calling my office because their families are struggling to pay for basic needs like food and gas. They are calling because they want us to secure national borders and address the fentanyl epidemic. They are calling because they want to know what Congress is doing about rampant crime in cities across the country. These are the issues facing our constituents. These are the issues they are calling about because they are the issues affecting their everyday lives and the ones we should be focusing on.

It is because of the irresponsible policies by Democrats that we have such a big hole to dig ourselves out of, and now they want to ignore these problems altogether and take up our precious time left in Congress to consider legislation built off reality TV.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, I ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 8488, a bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from sending petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, is an important national security tool and safety net for this country. The United States has already been improperly depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under this administration since it is refusing to increase domestic production during an energy crisis.

We most certainly should not be selling our emergency supply to an adversary like China.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) to speak further on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from the Rules Committee that, as I mentioned before, many of the Republicans plan on supporting the telehealth bill, although I think we missed the opportunity to have Republican input and have an improved bill. But we are able to do more than one thing.

My colleague mentioned that this is very partisan. Gas and oil prices are a serious, serious issue for our constituents. As I mentioned before, it is about their getting to work, it is about their getting to school, and it is about their getting to church. They need us to address the cost of oil and gas.

The Democrats have really just simply tried to distract from this issue and tried to distract us with all kinds of other things and not really talk about the issues facing our constituents.

And like I said earlier, we certainly do have Republican support for the telehealth bill. As a matter of fact, I believe that there are Republican sponsors of that bill.

But I think that what is happening now is the Democrats are truly trying to distract from the issues that are really facing our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just have to say that the calls for working together ring hollow to me because working together should be happening in markup. Working together should be happening in committee meetings. But the Democrats have repeatedly and consistently chosen to skip the committee process and bring things directly to the Rules Committee and directly to the floor. And so when they call for working together, I think that that starts at the committee process.

And as for bringing solutions to the floor, the Westerman-McMorris Rodgers bill that would address the energy costs has been brought repeatedly as a PQ to the floor. The Democrats had the opportunity to take a look at that and to vote on it.

With a more exact answer, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that finding middle ground actually starts with allowing the minority input into bills, whether that be in committee or offering amendments on the floor. But that is where finding middle ground and that is where finding bipartisan solutions starts.

I would also like to remind my colleague from the Rules Committee that this PQ would not stop consideration of the bills in the rule. It would simply allow consideration of the amendment that was proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have to just mention again, because I am confused, and I want it stated very clearly what I have said repeatedly. There are many Republicans who will be supporting the telehealth bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are many Republicans that will be supporting the telehealth bill. That is not where I am concerned that we are not addressing constituents' issues with.

Where I am concerned about our constituents is the price of gas and the inflation that they are facing, and that we need to be addressing those issues; and that is why we offered the PQ that we did. And that is why we have offered repeated solutions to the cost of gas and the inflation facing our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do continue to be disappointed in my colleagues. It is possible that they are really this out of touch.

The typical family is now spending almost $500 per month. Across the country, people are making changes like skipping meals, changing driving patterns, and even delaying retirement to adjust their lives to cope with the accelerating inflation; inflation caused by out-of- control government spending and regulation.

Cities across the country are experiencing record crime waves. We have a serious immigration crisis leading to the deaths of countless people at our southern border and in our hometowns because of the fentanyl drug crisis crossing along with them.

I know that, like mine, your offices are getting daily calls about all of these. Why are we spending time on anything that does not work directly to solve those devastating problems in our country?

Maybe it is because Democrats want to distract us from the fact that their policies got us here, rather than fix them. We could be discussing genuine efforts to stop crime or increase domestic energy production or alleviate pressure points to the supply chain.

But, for the sake of the Green New Deal and rampant government spending, Americans are going to have to suffer through inaction on real issues facing Americans by this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1256 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1256, providing for consideration of H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act, under a structured rule.

It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, makes in order one amendment, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4040, the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act, under a closed rule.

The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Pallone, provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule deems as passed H. Res. 517.

First, the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act, led by Representative Cheney, and I am a proud cosponsor, will extend critical telehealth policies implemented during the pandemic while making it easier for seniors to access telehealth services.

We know that because of the pandemic, healthcare visits to the doctor drastically changed, and these health services have become critical to patients in accessing care. The pandemic made access to healthcare difficult, but telehealth turned this negative into a positive.

To avoid exposure, many patients, including high-risk, vulnerable people, choose to visit their doctor by video or telephone to receive care. In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, we in Congress authorized bipartisan legislation expanding telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries in March 2020. This was especially important for our seniors and underserved areas, where it is already significantly more challenging to access in-person care.

Telehealth is a very popular program among populations living in both remote and rural areas and in highly populated areas. According to a recent study, nearly a quarter of U.S. adults over 65 had a video doctor's visit during the pandemic.

In November 2021, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that it would extend some telehealth coverage through 2023. However, certain telehealth services are scheduled to end when the declared public health emergency expires.

Why should we end something, a program, that is helping vulnerable people access medical care?

Telehealth is no longer an innovative option for accessing healthcare services. For many, these services are a lifeline.

H.R. 4040 would extend critical telehealth policies under Medicare that were initially authorized at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic through 2024. Specifically, H.R. 4040 would provide patients with better access to telehealth regardless of where they are by removing geographic barriers.

It would expand the availability of telehealth services for patients by increasing the number of health clinics' eligibility, including federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics.

It will allow flexibility for Medicare beneficiaries to access mental health telehealth and ensure audio-only telehealth services under Medicare continue to be covered.

These provisions will help increase access to care and allow Medicare to adapt to innovations in medical technology, all while reducing healthcare costs and significantly reducing wait times for patient care.

H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act, will improve public safety and protect wild animals by prohibiting the private possession of lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, cougars, or any hybrid of these species.

In short, this bill prevents people from keeping big cats as pets and helps ensure that these animals are not kept in inhumane conditions. Many law enforcement and first responder groups are supportive of this legislation and are asking Congress to pass this bipartisan bill to protect themselves and the general public.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these two bipartisan bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, today Democrats are talking about expanding access to healthcare and helping our constituents live healthy lives. That is what Democrats are bringing to the floor today in a bipartisan way.

But yet here we are with some Republican colleagues across the aisle continuing to insert divisive politics into a debate about healthcare, about being able to see your doctor, and about being able to live a healthy life. Perhaps it is because there are billions to be made in gun sales or oil sales. But Democrats will continue to try to find Republicans on the other side to save American lives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I absolutely agree that we can do more than one thing at a time. But unfortunately, today should be a day that we are working together in a bipartisan way, again, to expand access to healthcare for fragile Americans that want to have an opportunity and deserve to have an opportunity to see their doctor.

So, while my colleagues continue to talk about the millions and billions of dollars that gun manufacturers and oil folks are making, we want to talk about expanding healthcare.

But let me remind my colleagues, too, that it is easy to come to the floor and rant and rave when you have no real ideas to offer or solutions.

But let's take a look at the facts. The current drop in gas prices is one of the fastest declines in over a decade. Gas prices have declined by an average of 50 cents per gallon over the past 34 days. The most common price at gas stations across the country is now $3.99, with around 20,000 gas stations across over 30 States.

But, you see, it is not just about gasoline. We are also increasing availability and options for Americans to drive electric vehicles. So we can do more than one thing.

But I urge my colleagues across the aisle, if they truly care about telehealth, if they truly care about improving healthcare options for Americans, that we focus on the two bills, the rule that we have in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Working together means meeting each other in the middle when we agree or disagree on an issue, finding middle ground. That is what this bill does because some Republicans and Democrats agree that the healthcare of the American people is worth so much more than nonsense political headlines.

So today, once again, we come together, some of us, to help continue to save lives by passing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is unfortunate that we fail--some of us on this floor--to recognize that the lead author of this bill is a Republican member of their caucus. Unfortunately, it is a Republican member of their caucus that they no longer find conveniently friendly to their agenda of hate and division.

Today, we stand together, and I urge my Republican colleagues to support this bill, to, again, help Americans find the doctor and the healthcare that they need in order to live a better life.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The two bills before us for consideration, H.R. 263 and H.R. 4040, will increase access to critical healthcare services and improve public safety. I am proud of Representative Liz Cheney.

And while my colleagues continue to argue and work against the healthcare of the American people, we will stand together with those Republicans that have the courage to stand up for healthcare and healthcare options.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be brief in my remarks here.

I know that you have heard several concerns expressed about this entire process, and I would certainly share those concerns.

I do think that this is a great opportunity to address a bipartisan issue that is important across America. But it appears this bill was negotiated quickly, in secret, and outside the committees of jurisdiction. Neither outside stakeholders nor Members who have worked extensively on telehealth policy were consulted, as far as I can tell, and the closed rule under which this is being considered has precluded any opportunity to improve or amend the bill.

An issue this important deserves an open and transparent process that follows regular order, allowing Members to offer input and highlight important needs which might otherwise have been overlooked. We call this legislating.

If we had worked together on the Ways and Means Committee with our Energy and Commerce friends and had included the various ideas and innovations, this would have been a true and real bipartisan bill. I am confident that the telehealth extension we are considering today would be even better, as has been mentioned by my colleagues.

In fact, back in May, I introduced a bipartisan bill almost identical to this one called the Connecting Rural Telehealth to the Future Act. That bill extended all the provisions included in the FY22 omnibus through at least 2024 and also included provisions to ensure critical access hospitals can continue to provide telehealth services to their patients. It also corrects a flaw in the CARES Act which shortchanges federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics which offer telehealth services.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two letters from the National Rural Health Association and the National Association of Rural Health Clinics expressing their support for both the aims of H.R. 4040 as well as the need to extend critical rural health provisions from the Connecting Rural Telehealth to the Future bill.

National Rural

Health Association,

July 26, 2022.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: The

National Rural Health Association (NRHA) applauds the House

of Representatives for prioritizing telehealth flexibilities

by scheduling a vote on H.R. 4040, the Advancing Telehealth

Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2022. This legislation will extend

important telehealth flexibilities enacted in the Coronavirus

Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and extended

for 151 days post-public health emergency in the Consolidated

Appropriations

Act (CAA), 2022, until December 31, 2024. NRHA supports the

extension of telehealth flexibilities to show providers that

telehealth is here to stay but urges rural friendly tweaks to

the legislation.

NRHA is a non-profit membership organization with more than

21,000 members nationwide that provides leadership on rural

health issues. Our membership includes every component of

rural America's health care, including rural community

hospitals, critical access hospitals, doctors, nurses, and

patients. We provide leadership on rural health issues

through advocacy, communications, education, and research.

As the text is currently written, H.R. 4040 includes the

extension of distant-site status for Federally Qualified

Health Centers (FQHC) and Rural Health Clinics (RHC) at their

current reimbursement level. While continuation of this

flexibility is necessary, the reimbursement level for virtual

services is significantly lower than in-person services under

current statute. Should reimbursement remain as it is

currently written, by 2028 there will be nearly a $100

discrepancy between services provided in-person and virtually

at RHCs. NRHA believes this will cause rural communities to

utilize these important services less often than their urban

and suburban counterparts moving forward and will cause harm

to an already fragile rural safety net.

To remedy this discrepancy, NRHA urges this text be amended

to incorporate reimbursement updates as reflected in Section

9 of H.R. 7876, the Connecting Rural Telehealth into the

Future Act, introduced by Representatives Adrian Smith (R-NE)

and Terri Sewell (D-AL). Incorporating this legislative text

will bring payment parity between in-person and virtual care

at RHCs and FQHCs and ensure that rural communities have

access to the same health care delivery methods as their

urban and suburban counterparts.

NRHA applauds the House of Representatives for acting on

telehealth to show providers long-term stability. However, to

ensure that rural providers, and their patients, can properly

utilize these services tweaks are needed.

Sincerely,

Alan Morgan,

Chief Executive Officer.

Madam Speaker, these organizations fully understand the vital role that rural health clinics and FQHCs and critical access hospitals play in ensuring access to care for those in rural and underserved areas.

Even with the passage of this bill, the future of telehealth after the government-designated public health emergency is uncertain. More work needs to be done to assess what has worked well over the last 2 years, what can be improved, and what can safely be left behind.

While I do encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on this bill, I hope in the future we can work in a true bipartisan fashion under regular order to address the gaps that we know exist in policy and set a long-term, sustainable course for telehealth well beyond 2024.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think we have had a good discussion here today. I think we have laid out that we are acting in good faith, supporting an issue, moving it forward, but also posing the scenario that there are so many other things we can do to address the very matter that we are taking up here today.

The surrounding details about how this bill came up and everything, I think it is problematic for the institution. But the fact of the matter is, we have an issue here that we need to address. I hope that we can work to continue to make it permanent in the future so that we can encourage investment, as was outlined previously, and encourage bending of the cost curve, ultimately, on healthcare, which is lacking at this point in time.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I urge a different kind of cooperation moving forward.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.