Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior relating to "Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska".

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

Before I start, I include in the Record a letter from over 20 healthcare provider organizations regarding the danger of cutting certain providers off from title X funding because they also provide abortion with private funds.

February 3, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Senate Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Senate Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Schumer and

Leader Pelosi: As organizations representing health care and

public health professionals and the people they serve across

the country, we strongly oppose any effort to prevent Planned

Parenthood health centers from participating in federal

health programs, including Medicaid and the Title X family

planning program. Any proposal to exclude Planned Parenthood

from public health programs will severely curtail women's

access to essential health care services, including family

planning, well-woman exams, breast and cervical cancers

screenings, and HIV testing and counseling. At a time when

there is much uncertainty about the future of affordable

health care in our country, it is dangerous to cut off access

to the life-saving preventive care that Planned Parenthood

provides to some of our nation's most vulnerable patients.

Planned Parenthood health centers play a crucial role in

improving the health and lives of people across the country.

In fact, 2.5 million women, men and young people rely on

Planned Parenthood for health care every year. For many

women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care--

offering basic preventive services that are fundamental to

women's health and well-being. More than 50% of Planned

Parenthood health centers are in areas with health

professional shortages, rural or medically underserved areas.

In 2014 alone, Planned Parenthood health centers provided

nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings and more than

360,000 breast exams. Additionally, Planned Parenthood

provides contraceptive services for over 2 million patients

and more than 4 million tests and treatments for sexually

transmitted infections, including HIV. These services improve

women's health, prevent an estimated 579,000 unintended

pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality.

Policies that would exclude Planned Parenthood from public

health funding would hurt millions of patients and undermine

health care access in communities across the country.

Limiting access to Planned Parenthood's approximately 650

health care centers across the country would prevent patients

from having timely access to basic preventive health care

services. Approximately 60 percent of Planned Parenthood

patients access care through Medicaid and Title X, in

addition to those who rely on other essential programs,

including maternal and child health programs and Centers for

Disease and Prevention (CDC) breast and cervical cancer

screening programs. In some states, Planned Parenthood is the

only provider participating in Title X, and more than 50

percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in a

medically underserved or health professional shortage area.

Because federal law already requires health care providers to

demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion,

prohibitions on funding for preventive care at Planned

Parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these

life-saving services.

In addition to limiting patients access to health care,

defunding Planned Parenthood is not cost effective. The

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that

approximately 390,000 women would lose access and up to

650,000 patients could face reduced access to preventive

health care within a year should Congress act to block all

Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood

health centers. The CBO also projects that excluding Planned

Parenthood health centers from receiving reimbursement

through the Medicaid program would result in a net cost to

taxpayers of $130 million over 10 years because of the

increase in unintended pregnancies without the contraceptive

care provided by Planned Parenthood. Other publicly funded

health centers would not be able to compensate for the loss

of affordable family planning and reproductive health care

services provided by Planned Parenthood.

Every day, we see the harmful impact that unequal access to

health care has on women and communities across the country,

and we therefore strongly support policies that improve

access to affordable, quality health care. Policies that

would deny Planned Parenthood public health funds only serve

to cut millions off from critical preventive care, and we

strongly oppose any effort to do so. We also recognize this

as part of a broader effort to undermine access to safe,

legal abortion and curtail access to other reproductive

health care by limiting the ability of abortion providers to

participate in public health programs.

Sincerely,

American Academy of Nursing, American Academy of

Pediatrics, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American

Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical

Student Association, American Medical Women's Association

(AMWA), American Nurses Association, American Psychological

Association, American Public Health Association, American

Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of

Reproductive Health Professionals, Doctors for America, GLMA:

Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality.

Midwest Access Project, The National Alliance to Advance

Adolescent Health, National Family Planning & Reproductive

Health Association, National Medical Association, National

Physicians Alliance, North American Society for Pediatric and

Adolescent Gynecology (NASPAG), Nurse Practitioners in

Women's Health, Nursing Students for Sexual & Reproductive

Health, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Society for

Adolescent Health and Medicine, Society for Maternal-Fetal

Medicine, Society of Family Planning.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from myself and 161 other Members to Speaker Ryan opposing the Republican majority's efforts to undermine title X family planning programs and women's access to health care.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: We write to express our grave concern

for efforts to undermine Title X family planning. Despite

promises to focus on jobs and the economy, Republicans have

started the 115th Congress with a total assault on women's

choices, access to care, and economic security by:

Charging ahead to sabotage and dismantle the Affordable

Care Act (ACA) while making no promises to preserve vital

protections for women;

Providing little to no details on their plans to replace

ACA, while making a point to announce that their ACA repeal

package will block access to Planned Parenthood, a high-

quality, long-trusted provider of reproductive health

services;

Rushing to impose and dramatically expand the global gag

rule, harming women around the world; and

Advancing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion

Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7) through the House,

effectively banning private insurance companies from covering

comprehensive reproductive health services.

Now, with their most recent effort to weaken the Title X

national family planning program through the Congressional

Review Act, Republicans have demonstrated that they will stop

at nothing to limit women's access to vital health care.

Sadly, this includes contraception and family planning

services that all women need.

For more than 40 years, Title X has served as a cornerstone

of safety-net care. As the only dedicated source of federal

funding for family planning, Title X allows a diverse network

of providers to deliver high-quality care to low-income,

uninsured, or underinsured individuals and to those seeking

confidential care. In 2014 alone, Title X-funded clinics

helped prevent approximately 904,000 unintended pregnancies,

326,000 abortions, and 439,000 unplanned births. In addition

to direct clinical care, Title X also supports critical

infrastructure needs for health centers, including new

medical equipment and staff training that are not

reimbursable under Medicaid and commercial insurance. This

infrastructure is vital to ensuring safe, quality care at

health centers which serve and provide basic health services

to high-need populations.

Throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations,

Title X has been interpreted to prohibit state actions that

block providers or classes of providers from participating in

a Title X project based on factors unrelated to a provider's

qualifications to perform the required services. The networks

include providers ranging from state, county, and local

health departments as well as hospitals, family planning

councils, Planned Parenthood affiliates, federally qualified

health centers and other private non-profit organizations. In

fact, in instances when states have passed laws to

limit provider participation in Title X, federal courts have

consistently held that those state laws are contrary to, and

preempted by, federal law.

In response to a growing number of states targeting family

planning providers for exclusion from key federal health

programs, including Title X, the previous Administration

proposed the regulation ``Compliance with Title X

Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting

Subrecipients.'' The regulation, which was finalized in

December 2016, helps ensure patient access to family planning

services and supplies through qualified providers by

reiterating that ``no recipient making subawards for the

provision of services as part of its Title X project may

prohibit an entity from participating for reasons other than

its ability to provide Title X services. During the

rulemaking process, the Department of Health and Human

Services received more than 145,000 comments, the vast

majority of which supported the rule.

Women across the United States, and the men who support

them, have had enough. It is unconscionable that this common

sense clarification has become a political football for

members of Congress who want to limit women's access to

comprehensive reproductive health care. We urge you to stand

in support of women and oppose this assault on contraceptive

access and care.

Sincerely,

Judy Chu, Louise Slaughter, Diana DeGette, Frank Pallone,

Jr., Earl Blumenauer, Suzan DelBene, Lois Frankel, Alcee L.

Hastings, Brenda L. Lawrence, Sean Patrick Maloney, Jerry

McNerney, Danny K. Davis, Eliot L. Engel, Raul M. Grijalva,

William R. Keating, Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, Gwen Moore,

Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jan Schakowsky.

Jackie Speier, Peter A. DeFazio, Katherine Clark, Dina

Titus, Linda T. Sanchez, Mike Quigley, Mark Pocan, Grace F.

Napolitano, Alma S. Adams, Mark Takano, Grace Meng, Yvette D.

Clarke, Kathleen M. Rice, Brian Higgins, Debbie Wasserman

Schultz, Pete Aguilar, Betty McCollum, Lucille Roybal-Allard,

Suzanne Bonamici, Luis V. Gutierrez, Raja Krishnamoorthi.

Scott H. Peters, Anna G. Eshoo, James P. McGovern, John

Yarmuth, Wm. Lacy Clay, Gene Green, Jimmy Panetta, Jose E.

Serrano, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Carol Shea-Porter, Jared

Huffman, Nita M. Lowey, Carolyn B. Maloney, Niki Tsongas,

Andre Carson, Jerrold Nadler, Chellie Pingree, Zoe Lofgren,

Seth Moulton, Kurt Schrader, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.

Sander M. Levin, Rick Larsen, Bill Foster, Frederica S.

Wilson, Adam Smith, David Scott, Pramila Jayapal, Paul Tonko,

Kathy Castor, Marc A. Veasey, Ted W. Lieu, Peter Welch, Ami

Bera, Eddie Bernice Johnson, G.K. Butterfield, Steven

Cohen, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Daniel T. Kildee,

Beto O'Rourke, Julia Brownley.

Marcia L. Fudge, Tony Cardenas, Joseph H. Crowley, Marcy

Kaptur, Alan Lowenthal, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Albio Sires, Eric

Swalwell, Joyce Beatty, Ron Kind, Pete Visclosky, Cedric L.

Richmond, Al Green, Darren Soto, Juan Vargas, Mike Doyle,

Bradley S. Schneider, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Raul Ruiz,

Elizabeth H. Esty.

Salud Carbajal, Robert A. Brady, Derek Kilmer, Gregory W.

Meeks, Emanuel Cleaver, Theodore E. Deutch, Mike Thompson,

Hakeem Jeffries, Adriano Espaillat, David N. Cicilline, Tim

Ryan, Val Butler Demings, Adam B. Schiff, Brad Sherman, Rosa

DeLauro, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jim Himes, Donald Norcross,

Michelle Lujan Grisham, Matt Cartwright.

John Conyers, Jr., Gerald E. Connolly, Debbie Dingell,

David Loebsack, Stephen F. Lynch, Keith Ellison, Mark

DeSaulnier, John Garamendi, Denny Heck, Jamie Raskin, Nydia

M. Velazquez, Sheila Jackson Lee, David E. Price, James R.

Langevin, Colleen Hanabusa, Robin L. Kelly, Terri Sewell, Ben

Ray Lujan, Josh Gottheimer, Susan Davis.

Cheri Bustos, Michael Capuano, Jacky Rosen, Norma J.

Torres, Donald M. Payne, Jr., A. Donald McEachin, John Lewis,

Joe Courtney, Ruben J. Kihuen, Brendan F. Boyle, Jared Polis,

Ann McLane Kuster, Jim Cooper, Charlie Crist, Anthony Brown,

Filemon Vela, Ed Perlmutter, Lisa Blunt Rochester, John

Sarbanes, John B. Larson.

Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the majority is in the midst of an unprecedented and relentless assault on women's health--and many other regulations while we are at it--that are being overturned every day here.

Although it pledged to govern by prioritizing jobs and the economy, the majority is, instead, escalating its war on women with H.J. Res. 43, a dangerous continuation of its never-ending crusade against access to health care for women.

The majority started the 115th Congress by moving quickly to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, a law that finally barred insurance companies from treating women as being a preexisting condition. Without this law, women once again would pay a higher rate for coverage than men.

Think about that for a moment. If everybody doesn't know it, before this law, single women paid from 10 to 57 percent more than men for their health insurance in States that allowed gender rating. A lot of people don't understand this, but it costs American women nearly a billion dollars every year. But Republicans are rushing to repeal the Affordable Care Act without anything to take its place.

The majority has also advanced H.R. 7, a sweeping bill that would go beyond even the Hyde amendment, a 40-year provision that has been around for four decades too long.

This legislation wouldn't just make this amendment permanent; it would also place unprecedented limits on women's access to reproductive health services even if they wanted to pay out of their own pockets to access constitutionally protected abortion services.

These moves by the majority, along with the President signing a dramatic expansion of the global gag rule immediately after taking office, have brought millions of people pouring into the streets in protest.

During the National Women's March, millions of people marched all across the country and even around the globe to defend women's rights. These marches were likely the largest day of protests in American history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here in the Nation's Capital. They were peaceful, without a single arrest reported anywhere in the country.

Far from respecting those rights, the majority is today considering a measure that marks an entirely new front in their war against women's rights. This is the most serious threat facing women so far in this Congress, and it is only February.

Programs supported by title X help provide lifesaving preventative healthcare services like contraception, cancer screening, and STD testing to the men and women who need them most.

It is outrageous that the majority today is trying to allow conservative State legislatures to pick and choose who can provide this essential care with Federal money. That is one of the worst things in the world. The luck of the draw of where you live will determine whether or not you have access that is entitled to all people from the Federal money. This would threaten health centers from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing the same problem today we faced for a very long time: men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can and should do when it comes to their own health. They believe the majority of persons--women--in the United States are incapable of making their own decisions.

Do you think that about your own mother or your wife?

Because Washington, D.C., is controlled by this Republican majority, the stakes for women are higher today than they have been in generations, as we turn over laws passed by the elected government of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders in Congress turn a deaf ear to the majority of Americans who oppose this dramatic government intervention into women's health care. They, unfortunately, have the votes to pass it, but they will have to reckon with the overwhelming majority of the public who understands it is time for the government to get out of the business of taking away women's healthcare rights.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a personal moment to speak about the departure of a long-time member of my staff on the Rules Committee. I have always believed that this committee is like family and that we have one of the most respected staffs on Capitol Hill. Adam Berg, the deputy staff director and counsel on the Democratic staff personifies this.

After a decade of working for the Rules Committee, Adam is beginning a new chapter on a different committee in the House of Representatives. His knowledge and guidance these last years have been immeasurable.

During his time here, he has married his wife, Erika, who is beautiful and talented, and became a father to his daughter, Ariel, who was singing songs with her mother at the age of 3 months. That is a precocious child.

Adam has played a key role as this committee brought landmark legislation to the floor of the House, including Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act, and legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage.

The committee wouldn't have been as effective without Adam's counsel, and he will be greatly missed. I wish him nothing but the best in his new endeavor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I think I need to make this point one more time. I really believe that everybody in this House understands that not a dime of Federal money is used for abortions. It never has been, never will. There is meticulous care taken by Planned Parenthood to separate those funds. They have never been questioned in any way by the IRS as to how those funds are being used.

I am sick and tired of everybody saying you can't give anything to Planned Parenthood. The money that goes to Planned Parenthood from this Federal Government goes to reimburse for services rendered for the things I had talked about before: cervical cancer tests, cancer tests of all sorts, and health care that they cannot get anywhere else, such as screening for STDs. That is totally separate.

Yet, that fable that Federal money is used for abortions if you fund Planned Parenthood is totally false. I think it is time that grownups that can read in the House of Representatives do away with that notion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence community regarding the foreign interference in our most recent election. The fears have only been compounded by the troubling revelations published in The New York Times last night that members of the Trump campaign had been in frequent contact with Russian intelligence officials during that campaign.

Mr. Speaker, the future of our democracy is at stake. We are seeing the

same kinds of things that have happened all over Europe, as governments have been changing away from democracies. It is at stake here, and it is time this Republican-controlled Congress does its job and gets to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate foreign interference in our 2016 election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of meeting hundreds of constituents who traveled from Rochester, New York, to Washington, D.C., for the Women's March on Washington. Some of them came with three generations, and it was most impressive, but it is troubling to me that we are fighting many of the same battles that were fought and won generations ago.

The unprecedented marches and rallies that have been happening are necessary because of efforts like this to continually chip away at women's healthcare rights. The sad reality is that politicians have always worked to put up new roadblocks between women and their health care. It has always been my personal belief that when faced with a decision that needs to be made about a pregnancy, a woman should consult whomever she chooses--certainly her husband, her spiritual adviser, her medical adviser, but no one wants to wait in the room until a Congressperson gets there to make the final decision. We are going way beyond our depth to try to make that decision for persons. The government should not be in the business of doing that. The majority has made attacking women's constitutional rights the first order of business this year, working alongside our new President, and it is shameful.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the other measure before us today would repeal the Alaska predator rule which protects the interests of all Americans in national wildlife refuges while banning some of the most inhumane tactics for killing, like killing black bears from an airplane and killing coyote pups in their dens. We should be listening to scientists who study and understand these species, not an ideological minority that sees every animal with teeth as a threat to civilization and a potential addition to their trophy hunting collection.

Mr. Speaker, 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 123 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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 unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 123 provides for a rule to consider two Congressional Review Act resolutions which will undo burdensome and harmful regulations put into place by the Obama administration during the final hours of his Presidency. The rule brings before the House these resolutions so that Congress may remove, through the proper legislative process, rules promulgated by bureaucrats who remain unaccountable to the American people. This process allows those who are accountable--the elected Representatives in the Congress--to fight for their constituents' rights and liberties.

House Resolution 123 provides for a closed rule for each of the Congressional Review Act resolutions, both H.J. Res. 43 and H.J. Res. 69, the standard procedure for such resolutions, since the sole purpose of each is to remove a harmful regulation from the Federal Register.

The rule allows for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and the minority leader or their designees, for H.J. Res. 43, and 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the Chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, for H.J. Res. 69. On each resolution contained in the rule, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit.

H.J. Res. 43 is a joint resolution which would repeal the Obama administration's midnight rule that takes away States' ability to direct funding within their own borders to certain healthcare providers that conform to the States' values.

In her final days in office, Secretary Mathews Burwell pushed forward a rule that would require States to fund, with public dollars, facilities that perform abortions, potentially against the will of the people of that given State. This flies in the face of the 10th Amendment which grants to States the authority to make such decisions within their borders and to prioritize which healthcare providers should receive funding based on the greatest need in their own communities.

Those of us who care about the carefully crafted Federal system which our Founding Fathers set up, which allows different States to operate differently based upon their own values and priorities, recognize the Obama rule for what it is: a power grab by the Federal Government. This is why the House will take up this resolution today--to continue to fight for states' rights--and will repeal this burdensome regulation that ties the hands of every State legislature and ties the hands of every Governor in the Nation.

H.J. Res. 69 is a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal an overreaching regulation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service which usurps Alaska's ability to manage its own lands within its own borders. Federal law has long recognized that Alaska--that Alaska--and her elected officials are in the best position to make the decisions on what actions to permit on the public lands in that State, whether those lands are Federal, State, or private.

Despite this long precedent, codified by Congress in the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act, the Obama administration moved forward in its waning days with a rule that imposes Federal restrictions on lands that have been, up until the end of the Obama administration, successfully regulated by the State of Alaska. Like H.J. Res. 43, this resolution recognizes the important 10th Amendment protections put in place by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution which protects states' rights to govern within their own borders.

The Congressional Review Act is an important tool in maintaining accountability at the Federal level. Its necessity has never been more apparent than over the past few weeks where this Congress has needed to step in and remove burdensome and unbalanced regulations put in place by President Obama and his team just as they were walking out the door.

House Republicans today will stand up for the rights of our constituents against an out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the two underlying Congressional Review Act resolutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that H.J. Res. 43 would repeal the Obama administration's rule and allow States to enjoy the freedom and flexibility to distribute title X grant money in a way that serves the needs of their constituents.

Just in the way of background, December 16, 2016, the Obama administration finalized a rule that prevents States from eliminating abortion providers from title X grant distributions. Title X is a family planning program authorized in 1970, and was intended to provide family planning services to low-income women. The Obama rule was widely perceived as an attempt by the Obama administration to require States to fund Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion business.

Prior to the Obama administration's rule, States were free to direct their title X funds to healthcare providers that did not participate in abortion. When States had this freedom, they were able to choose to invest in women's health care instead of investing in Big Abortion.

States should be able to choose to prioritize family planning funds to health clinics that offer a full range of healthcare services, including family planning, but do not participate in abortion.

States can fully support family planning and other health services without funding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood only comprises 13 percent of approximately 4,100 title X service sites.

Redirecting funds away from abortion providers does not reduce funds for the title X program. When States set criteria that eliminates abortion providers from title X distributions, those funds are then directed to other clinics.

Eighty-seven percent of current title X service sites are comprised of local health departments, local hospitals, and Federally qualified health centers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I reference a letter that was sent to Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy by a number of sports-related organizations.

They say: ``We write representing organizations that collectively include millions of wildlife conservationists . . . wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists, in strong support of H.J. Res. 49 from Cong. Young of Alaska. . . . Our community exhausted all Executive Branch appeals and remedies urging the FWS to slow down the Proposed Rule, and revise it to reflect a proposal mutually agreed to by the State of Alaska and the FWS; all to no end. It is time for Congress to nullify this final rule.''

They go on to say: ``This final rule boldly preempts the authority of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to manage wildlife for both recreational and subsistence hunting on NWRs, which authority of the state is affirmed by Congress in the Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The FWS final rule was premised on a meeting as a priority the FWS policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health. . . . Many members of our organizations enjoy Alaska's bounty of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for unrivaled hunting, fishing and outdoor experiences. The sustainable management of these natural resources needs to be led by the State working in cooperation with the FWS. We urge that you favorably consider H.J. Res. 49 which will restore the jurisdictional state- federal relationship as Congress has previously directed.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter written to the Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell signed by 110 Members of the House and Senate to express strong opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services' September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled ``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients.''

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2016.

Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell,

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Burwell, We write to express our strong

opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled

``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients

in Selecting Subrecipients.'' Although we appreciate the

Department's intent to follow proper regulatory procedure

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, HHS's purpose

for engaging in the rulemaking appears on its face to be an

attempt to subvert the will of elected representatives.

Moreover, apart from the Department's impetus for the

notice of proposed rulemaking, we also question whether the

Department's stated rationale adequately supports its

conclusion that providers with a reproductive health focus

are more ``effective'' than other health providers that offer

comprehensive care for women and men. Nowhere in the proposed

notice of rulemaking does HHS clearly define what it means to

provide Title X services in an ``effective'' manner. It does

appear to assert that a number of factors--such as the range

of contraceptive methods on-site, the number of clients in

need of publicly funded family planning services served, and

the availability of preconception care--distinguish providers

with a reproductive health focus as more ``effective'' and

``high quality'' than other types of providers. However, that

list of factors falls far short of all of the attributes and

recommendations included in the Centers for Disease Control

and Office of Population Affairs report entitled ``Providing

Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and

the US Office of Population Affairs.''

To further complicate the argument about quality and

effectiveness, the data cited in the notice of proposed

rulemaking is not adequate for determining patient outcomes.

The Department relies heavily on utilization and demographic

statistics, but appears to lack hard data regarding actual

patient outcomes and need, as the Department does not require

grantees to track patients or verify their income. As you

know, the issue of inadequate data has previously been raised

by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), after the HHS Office of

Family Planning in 2007 asked IOM to provide a critical

review of the Title X Family Planning Program. In addition to

finding ``no clear, evidence-based process for establishing

or revising program priorities and guidelines,'' IOM stated

the following in its May 2009 Report Brief:

``The committee concludes that the program does not collect

all the data needed to monitor and evaluate its impact.

Therefore, the committee proposes a comprehensive framework

to evaluate the program and assess how well clinics meet the

family planning needs of the program's clients. The committee

concludes that additional data will be needed in the areas of

client needs, structure, process, and outcomes in order to

assess the program's overall progress.''

We welcome evidence that this recommendation has been fully

adopted, but are unaware of any clear evidence confirming

that to be the case. If HHS cannot clearly define an

``effective'' or ``high quality'' provider, it is unclear to

us how state and local project grantees are supposed to do so

in order to comply with this proposed rule. It is also

therefore unclear how HHS will be able to accurately

determine in every case whether state or local project

recipients--who are generally closer to and more familiar

with subrecipients and the patient base in their geographical

region--have considered inappropriate criteria in evaluating

subrecipients. Rarely do the American people benefit when the

federal government attempts to substitute its judgment for

that of state or local governments--particularly when the

criteria used to inform that judgment are unclear, and that

judgment is not supported by coherent and impartial facts.

Finally, if HHS is going to assert the authority to adapt

its rules in order to address changing circumstances, we

implore HHS to consider the recent general shift in health

care policy toward comprehensive care. As HHS states on its

website, in addition to assisting individuals and couples in

planning and spacing births, part of the mission of Title X

is to contribute to ``improved health for women and

infants.'' HHS's suggestion that subrecipients like federally

qualified health centers--which provide greater preventive

and primary health care services than providers with a

reproductive health focus--are per se less ``effective'' than

providers with a reproductive health focus does not comport

with that stated mission.

We urge HHS to reconsider this overreaching and ill-

supported rule. We will continue to closely monitor this

proposed rulemaking, and intend to submit this letter as a

formal comment. We look forward to a detailed response from

your Department.

Sincerely,

Joni K. Ernst,

United States Senator.

Diane Black,

United States Congressman.

Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Bill

Cassidy (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve

Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), James

Inhofe (R-OK), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry

Moran (R-KS), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco

Rubio (R-FL), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tim Scott (R-SC), David

Vitter (R-LA).

In addition, Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Rick Allen

(R-GA), Brian Babin (R-TX), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Andy Barr

(R-KY), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN),

Charles Boustany, Jr. (R-LA), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Michael

Burgess (R-TX), Earl ``Buddy'' Carter (R-GA), Tom Cole (R-

OK), Chris Collins (R-NY), Doug Collins (R-GA), Mike Conaway

(R-TX), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Jeff

Duncan (R-SC), John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN).

Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), John

Fleming, (R-LA), Bill Flores (R-TX), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE),

Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Bob Gibbs (R-OH),

Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Trey Gowdy (R-SC),

Tom Graves (R-GA), Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Andy Harris (R-MD),

Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Jody Hice (R-

GA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Randy

Hultgren (R-IL), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS).

Bill Johnson (R-OH), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-

NC), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Trent Kelly (R-MS), Steve King (R-

IA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Robert E.

Latta (R-OH), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Barry Loudermilk (R-

GA), Mia Love (R-UT), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Kenny

Marchant (R-TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Rep. Mark

Meadows (R-NC), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Markwayne Mullin (R-

OK), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX).

Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Gary Palmer (AL), Steve Pearce (R-

NM), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Joe

Pitts (R-PA), Ted Poe (R-TX), Bill Posey (R-FL), Tom Price

(R-GA), John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Martha Roby (R-AL), Phil Roe

(R-TN), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Keith

Rothfus (R-PA), David Rouzer (R-NC), Steve Scalise (R-LA),

Austin Scott (R-GA).

James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), Pete Sessions (R-TX), John

Shimkus (R-IL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Ann

Wagner (R-MO), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Randy Weber (R-TX), Brad

Wenstrup (R-OH), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), and

Ted Yoho (R-FL).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two critical Congressional Review Act resolutions to repeal burdensome Federal regulations dropped on the doorstep of the American people in the waning hours of the Obama administration. The rules the House will be voting to repeal today would infringe upon states' rights to govern themselves within their own borders and would impose new Federal requirements and oversight in contravention of the 10th Amendment. This is why removing these regulations is critical. It is critical to maintaining the proper State-Federal balance that our Founding Fathers so carefully crafted in our Constitution.

I thank Representative Diane Black and Representative Don Young for their work on these pieces of legislation to protect states' rights. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the two underlying resolutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 123, I

call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 69) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior relating to ``Non- Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 69.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the only Member of Congress in the House from Alaska, the dean of the Republican side.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands in our full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the vice chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a member of our committee, who is also going to talk about the reality of what we are facing here.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman

from Alaska (Mr. Young), the one who actually lives there and knows the area and knows the names of the towns.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here to repeal a rule issued by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service to restrict hunting on the national wildlife refuges in Alaska.

This rule is a solution. The only problem is no one knows for what it is a solution because there is no problem. And the sad part is that means that this rule is basically a useless rule. It has no efficacy to it. Despite the assertions that had been made repeatedly and a cacophony of all sorts of practices that are seeming to be wrong and bad, this rule doesn't do that.

This rule does not abandon any of the practices you are talking about on subsistence hunting, only on nonsubsistence hunting, which simply means that, if you are classified as a subsistence hunter, anything that the other side talked about and raled about is actually allowed by the silly rule. That is why the rule makes no sense.

The State of Alaska had it under control, and there is no real problem that is solved by this rule that is totally inefficient, but did make something nice about it.

Now, it makes things worse because it is talking about predator control only on nonsubsistence hunting. Unfortunately, the predators don't know, when they go after their prey, whether that prey is designed for a subsistence hunter or a recreation hunter. They haven't learned to distinguish that yet.

Ergo, how you administer this law is totally ineffective. It is impossible to do so, and what you do is simply make a blanket approach so that everyone gets harmed in the same equal fashion. That is what Fish and Wildlife has decided to do.

In addition to that, yes, it is illegal. It usurps State authority, and it usurps it very clearly. You know, it is amazing to me. I cannot believe that in the first Congress that we had, the Founding Fathers were there coming up with the Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment, they thought the 10th Amendment would eventually some day be imagined by a bureaucrat in Washington to overrule Congress on matters that were clearly intended for State discretion, but that is precisely what we have done here.

This rule violates three congressionally passed statutes that have precedence on this particular issue. And this rule violates Federal law passed by Congress on three separate occasions.

What was supposed to be envisioned with this system was a cooperative relationship between the State and the Federal Government. What this rule simply does is allow for Fish and Wildlife on the Federal level to have supremacy, to destroy that cooperation and coordination and take over control totally. That is wrong. It should never be there.

There are 16 different refuges up there. That is 76 million acres of land now going to be controlled by the Fish and Wildlife system here in Washington. That is more acreage than 46 of the 50 States that we have. And, once again, for many of those people, this hunting is a source of subsistence up there.

Here is the bottom line: Mr. Blumenauer came up here and said, why don't we let the professionals make their decisions. They do. Those professionals are the Alaska Department of Fish and Game who know exactly what they are doing, they know the area, and they know the animals.

The so-called helicopter hunting that was raled against up here is not done by any recreational hunter. Alaska doesn't allow that. The Alaska Fish and Game will do that for management control based on scientific purposes and reasons and that only.

This rule doesn't change any of that. No. I'm sorry, this rule actually doesn't change any of the recreational hunting, which is already outlawed by the State of Alaska. It only stops the Fish and Wildlife system of Alaska from simply doing their job as they know how to do it.

I include in the Record a letter supported by 27 different organizations all dealing with outdoor life in support of this particular resolution.

February 6, 2017.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader McCarthy: We write

representing organizations that collectively include millions

of wildlife conservationists, hunter conservationists,

wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists, in strong

support of H.J. Res. 49 from Cong. Young (AK), which would

nullify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) final rule

``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation

and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in

Alaska'' (81 Fed. Reg. 52248 (August 5, 2016)). Our community

exhausted all Executive Branch appeals and remedies urging

the FWS to slow down the Proposed Rule, and revise it to

reflect a proposal mutually agreed to by the State of Alaska

and the FWS; all to no end. It is time for Congress to

nullify this final rule.

This final rule boldly preempts the authority of the Alaska

Department of Fish and Game to manage wildlife for both

recreational and subsistence hunting on NWRs, which authority

of the state is affirmed by Congress in the Alaska Statehood

Act, the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act, and

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The FWS

final rule was premised on meeting as a priority the FWS

policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental

Health; which

would inadvisably set a precedent nationally. Many members of

our organizations enjoy Alaska's bounty of fish and wildlife

resources and their habitats for unrivaled hunting, fishing

and outdoor experiences. The sustainable management of these

natural resources needs to be led by the State working in

cooperation with the FWS. We urge that you favorably consider

H.J. Res. 49 which will restore the jurisdictional state-

federal relationship as Congress has previously directed.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns

about this harmful and illegal rule which if left un-

remedied, significantly affects the use and appreciation of

the magnificent natural resources found in Alaska.

Sincerely,

Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to

Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari Club,

Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Houston Safari

Club, Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mule Deer Foundation,

National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports

Foundation, National Trappers Association, National Wild

Turkey Federation, Orion the Hunter's Institute.

Pheasants Forever, Professional Outfitters and Guides,

Quail Forever, Quality Deer Management Association, Ruffed

Grouse Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club

International, Sportsmen's Alliance, Whitetails Unlimited,

Wild Sheep Foundation, Wildlife Forever, Wildlife Management

Institute.

Madam Speaker, this comes from groups all over the Nation who understand what is going on and also realize the problem of this--I mean, there are some people who might think this only deals with Alaska. Technically, it does.

The problem is, if this happens to Alaska, if the ability of the Federal Government to supersede the State happens in Alaska, this could also happen to anyone of the lower 48 States.

We are simply one lawsuit away from Fish and Wildlife Service being either allowed or required to order similar regulations for everything across the lower 48 States as well. And that is what is so difficult and impossible to understand.

Look, let me try and sum it up this way: None of the practices that have been railed about today actually are existing, and any of those that are are easily controlled by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

The underlying premise, both of the rule that the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior did and the underlying premise of most of the debate that has happened here on the floor, is that only somebody who lives here in Washington has the intelligence, the foresight, the vision to make these kind of rules that unfortunately people in Alaska are simply too dumb to do it. You are a bunch of redneck hicks that don't understand how to rule yourself. You don't understand science. You barely have television.

I don't know what it is, but why do we have this mindset that only Washington can make these decisions when actually the States have proven, not only that are they capable, they are superior to what happens from this Department here in Washington.

That is what this is about, an illegal rule that simply takes away from the States what they are doing and what they are doing well; and that is why this should be opposed. That is why this rule should be pulled away. This midnight rule, once again, should be taken back.

Allow them to start over and do something intelligently. At least, recognize the professionals--the real professionals who work in the States to make this system work. They can do it. They have done it. Allow them to do their jobs, and protect the rest of us from any judge saying, oh, if it happened in Alaska, maybe it can happen in your State as well. That is the fear.

This is a rule passed by Fish and Wildlife at the last minute of the Obama administration that doesn't solve anything and will be impossible to administer. It violates everything that has gone on before.

Vote for this rule. Bring back sanity and allow the States to do their job as they are supposed to do and as the law prescribes for them to do.

I urge support of this. I don't know if you are undecided on whether I was for this resolution or not. Just, for the record, yes, I support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues and my fellow Americans can see what is even greater about this country in its far- reaching wildlife and open areas.

I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 69 because I do think it is important that we be good custodians of what has been given to us. Yes, to protect those humans who have come to be in places where wildlife was, but to be good custodians.

The rule that was adopted years ago after public engagement from many different people is reasonable and rational:

Denning of wolves and their pups, shooting or trapping them while at their dens in the spring; using airplanes to scout land and shoot grizzly bears; trapping of grizzly bears and black bears with steel- jawed leghold traps and wire snares--this is what that rule prevents-- luring grizzly bears with rotting meat, sugar, and pet food to get a point-blank kill; denning of black bear mothers and cubs during hibernation.

It reminds me of the time that I came to the floor last year to stand against a horrible killing of Cecil the lion by someone who wanted a trophy.

So let me tell you about the lesson from Dr. Ed Schmitt, a retired surgeon, a hunter, who moved to Alaska from Colorado to fish in the river that flowed by his house, to be able to hunt. He enjoyed fishing for salmon, casting for salmon, and seeing the brown bears, also known as grizzly bears. Here is what he said:

``'Most of us that live in Alaska are here because we recognize that it has something that the rest of the world doesn't,' says Mr. Schmitt, president of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, which is working with the HSUS to protect animals from trophy hunting abuses. `The wildness can be destroyed by people. We've stopped seeing the wildlife because we've made it go away.'''

He further said: ``It's not true that all Alaskans are OK with the state running rampant on public lands.''

`` `It's not true that all Alaskans are OK with the state running rampant on public lands,' he says. `Only a minority of Alaskans are hunters, and even fewer kill animals just for a trophy.' ''

This is Dr. Schmitt, a hunter. This is not a tree hugger. He is a hunter who moved to this beautiful land that we can call America. So many Americans on the mainland, in essence, go to this beautiful, connected Alaska, and so Dr. Schmitt goes on to say, like most hunters in Alaska, he is appalled at practices that have been raised up to not save the beauty of these wild animals. ``'The notion that people don't want any rules is a myth. We want good rules, just like everybody else.'''

Well, I want to stand alongside of Dr. Ed Schmitt, a healer, a former doctor, a hunter who moved to Alaska, who understands that what we are seeking to disapprove is wrong because it was a reasoned response to all who were engaged in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 69, a congressional resolution rescinding a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prevent widely criminalized, cruel, and unsporting hunting methods of killing wolves, grizzly bears, and other native mammals on 76 million acres of federal lands in Alaska.

I oppose the disapproval resolution because it subverts the judgment of professional wildlife managers, and allows appalling methods of killing animals on public lands designated for wildlife.

The FWS rule does not apply to subsistence hunting or sport hunting in general; it simply restricts methods of killing that are not suited anywhere, least of all on national wildlife refuges.

The rule, adopted after years of public engagement and with the support of many Alaskans, bans the following practices:

1. Denning of wolves and their pups--shooting or trapping them while at their dens in the spring;

2. Using airplanes to scout, land and shoot grizzly bears;

3. Trapping of grizzly bears and black bears with steel-jawed leg hold traps and wire snares;

4. Luring grizzly bears with rotting meat, sugar, and pet food to get a point blank kill; and

5. Denning of black bear mothers and cubs during hibernation.

H.J. Res. 69, if adopted, would prevent the Administration from ever issuing a rule on this topic, foreclosing our Federal wildlife managers from regulating these activities in any way under current law.

The decision to ban these cruel hunting practices came directly from professional wildlife managers from the FWS based in Alaska and is consistent with science-based wildlife management practices.

In addition, the FWS statutory mandate requires that the agency conserve wildlife species.

The FWS appealed to the Alaska Board of Game dozens of times to amend its rules to ensure that the FWS statutory mandate was being followed.

The Board of Game's continued refusal to do so forced FWS to initiate this rulemaking to ensure that its statutory mandate of conserving wildlife species on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska is followed.

Mr. Speaker, a statewide poll conducted in February 2016 showed Alaskans opposed denning of wolves by more than a 2-to-1 margin.

The poll showed that Alaska voters strongly support eliminating these cruel and unsporting methods of killing native carnivores on National Wildlife Refuges in their state.

Additionally, at a series of public meetings on the rule, many Alaskans turned out to publicly support the rule because they want these inhumane, unsustainable, unsporting practices to end.

Mr. Speaker, another reason to oppose H.J. Res. 69 is that it would damage wildlife tourism and hurt the economy of Alaska.

These are federal lands, maintained with federal taxpayer dollars, and millions of Americans travel to Alaska each year for the unique opportunity to see bears, wolves, caribou, lynx, and other species on these lands.

Wildlife watchers contribute over $2 billion to the economy of Alaska--five times more than the amount generated in Alaska from hunting activity.

The wildlife within our National Wildlife Refuges is a national resource and Americans across the country care about protecting it for future generations of Americans.

For these reasons, I strongly opposed H.J. Res. 69, and urge my colleagues to join me.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disapproval and to support and stand with these beautiful animals.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article, ``The Fight to Protect Alaska's Predators,'' and an article regarding Safari Club.

[The Humane Society of the United States, Oct. 19, 2016]

The Fight To Protect Alaska's Predators

(By Karen E. Lange)

Ed Schmitt, a retired surgeon, moved to Alaska to

experience the wild. He left Colorado for the Kenai

Peninsula, south of Anchorage, where he could fish in a river

that flowed right outside his house and hunt, he says, in a

way that respects wildlife and the environment. Schmitt

enjoyed casting for salmon and seeing brown bears, also known

as grizzly bears, fishing nearby.

He never wanted to kill them. But over 25 years,

development and new roads ate away bear habitat. And a

different mentality from Schmitt's, one that treats large

predators as

creatures to be eliminated so populations of moose and

caribou can flourish, took its toll on the Kenai's brown

bears. Schmitt hasn't seen one in three years.

``Most of us that live in Alaska are here because we

recognized that it has something that the rest of the world

doesn't,'' says Schmitt, president of the Alaska Wildlife

Alliance, which is working with The HSUS to protect animals

from trophy hunting abuses. ``The wildness can be destroyed

by people. We've stopped seeing the wildlife because we've

made it go away.'' A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule

released in August aims to preserve the state's biodiversity

by banning cruel and unsporting hunting methods on the 76

million acres of Alaska's federal national wildlife refuges.

(Last year, the National Park Service issued a similar rule

for the more than 20 million acres of federal preserves

within the state). Under the rule, supported by The HSUS and

a network of scientists and local advocacy groups, hunters

will no longer be able to bait brown bears, trap brown or

black bears or use a plane to find bears from the air and

then immediately land and shoot them. In addition, trophy

hunters will not be allowed to kill black bear mothers and

cubs or wolf and coyote mothers and pups in their dens

(subsistence hunters are exempt). And ``predator control''

programs, which let hunters kill greater numbers of

carnivores in the hope the populations of prey animals such

as caribou will increase, won't be permitted in national

wildlife refuges.

``This is the first time the federal government has stood

up to the state of Alaska's brutal practices in 37 years,''

says Wendy Keefover, HSUS native carnivore protection

manager, who led meetings on the rule in Anchorage, Juneau

and Fairbanks to encourage constituents to speak out.

An HSUS poll in March showed a majority of Alaskans support

these restrictions, and the Fish and Wildlife Service says

most people who submitted comments favored the rule. The

change came despite well-financed campaigns by the NRA and

Safari Club International against it, and the opposition of

the hunters, trappers and hunting guides on the state's Board

of Game, as well as Alaska's representatives in Congress.

HSUS Alaska state director Michael Haukedalen says the

number of residents who rallied to support the rule shows

there's a constituency for reform. ``It's not true that all

Alaskans are OK with the state running rampant on public

lands,'' he says. ``Only a minority of Alaskans are hunters,

and even fewer kill animals just for a trophy.''

In the 1980s and 1990s, citizen ballot initiatives passed

bans on cruel and unsporting hunting practices. However,

these were later overridden by the state legislature and

governor. In 1994, the legislature enacted a law requiring

the state's Department of Fish and Game to practice

``intensive management'' of predators if caribou, moose and

deer populations dropped below certain levels.

For 10 years federal officials tried to negotiate with the

Alaska Board of Game to protect wolves and bears from

egregious hunting practices, says biologist Francis Mauer,

retired from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

``It's this ever-increasing fervor to kill predators in

Alaska,'' he says. ``The federal agencies realized these

hunting practices are inconsistent with the purpose for which

the parks and reserves were established, and they had a

responsibility to act.''

The fight against hunting abuses has now shifted to

Washington, D.C., where Rep. Don Young (R-AK) got riders into

House appropriations and energy bills that would undo both

the Fish and Wildlife and National Park Service rules.

Similar language was slipped into a Senate appropriations

bill. The HSUS and other groups are encouraging Congress to

reject these riders before sending the bills to the

president.

Schmitt says he, like most hunters in Alaska, is appalled

by the practices the Fish and Wildlife Service has banned.

``The notion that people don't want any rules is a myth. We

want good rules, just like everybody else.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed to be part of this discussion of H.J. Res. 69.

Day in and day out, we have meaningful debate in committees and the House floor that reflect very real philosophical differences about the responsibilities and the limits of the Federal Government. These differences and world views inevitably reflect differences in values.

Today, I can't understand how my Republican friends can defend values that allow and promote the cruelest possible killing methods.

Humans have hunted for millennia. This hunting traditionally requires patience, skill, cunning and encourage, but not sugar doughnuts, helicopters, gasses, or leg traps.

Today's House joint resolution would overturn this incredibly fair and reasonable U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regulation that would rightly prohibit controversial and scientifically justified killing methods on 76 million acres of Federal wildlife refuge lands--76 million acres that belong to the American people.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act authorize--and, in fact, require--the Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain the natural diversity of refuges in Alaska, regardless of State wildlife laws. This includes protecting healthy populations of apex predators like wolves and bears.

So this rule would prohibit the inhumane and indiscriminate killing of keystone species in the national wildlife refuges. This does not interfere with fair chase hunting methods. It doesn't even prevent inhumane and indiscriminate killing on State and private lands.

Anyone voting to support this Congressional Review Act resolution today is tacitly supporting using airplanes and helicopters to scout land and shoot grizzly bears, killing wolves, black bears, coyote mothers and their pups and cubs in dens, actually gassing them, and the trapping of grizzly bears and black bears with steel-jawed leg-hold traps and wire snares, where they are trapped, bleeding, frightened, slowly dying of thirst and starvation. Statewide polls show that Alaskans strongly support eliminating these cruel and unsporting practices.

Alaska also gains over $2 billion in economic activity for wildlife viewing, which is five times what it earns from hunting. This makes economic sense. It is a huge driver of tourism. Many come to Alaska for the unique opportunity to see bears, wolves, and other keystone species. They are the very ones at risk if we pass this resolution.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, to oppose these cruel and

inhumane practices. They are not sporting practices, and they violate any understanding of humane values and respect for nature.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the former ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, a quick response to the notion that the fears of inhumane practices are utterly false. In a Los Angeles Times story in 2012, the headline is: ``Alaska officials expand aerial shooting of bears.''

It goes on to say:

``The controversial `intensive management' moves are the latest in a series of increasingly aggressive control methods targeting bears and wolves in Alaska. In some areas, wolf pups can be gassed in their dens, bear cubs and sows can be hunted, and wolves shot from helicopters.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Madam Speaker, one quick point is that these national wildlife refuges are U.S. public lands paid for by U.S. taxpayers and should be managed for the benefit of all. So let me quote former Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, recently departed, who said these ``are not game farms managed for a slice of their diversity for the benefit of a few people who would call themselves hunters.''

Much has been made in this debate this afternoon, Madam Speaker, about whether ANILCA prohibits this Fish and Wildlife rule. We have gone back and forth with different cases. Let me just quote a few key paragraphs.

Section 302 and 303 of ANILCA establishes 16 national wildlife refuges, and for each one, the purpose is stated for which the refuge is to be established and shall be managed, including: ``to conserve fish and wildlife populations in their natural diversity.''

The law doesn't say wildlife should be managed in some alternate state of unnatural diversity where no wolves, no bears, and overpopulated moose herds can destroy the landscape.

Both the ANILCA, and the Improvement Act, the 1998 law that reorganized the National Wildlife Refuge System, managed Alaska's Federal refuge managers to conserve natural diversity, a value that the Fish and Wildlife Services correctly noted is incompatible with indiscriminate predator culls.

Every Federal court to consider the question, including the Ninth Circuit, which contains Alaska, has held the States lack the authority to overrule Fish and Wildlife Service management decisions concerning Federal refuge management. So this has already been before the courts. The courts, I believe, have already decided.

Madam Speaker, in the few minutes I have left, let me just quote a few of the letters we received from Alaska residents in opposition to the resolution before us.

Elizabeth Figus, from Juneau, writes: ``I am an Alaskan. I hunt and fish, and I support regulations that prohibit cruel killing. This rule would rightly prohibit controversial and scientifically unjustified killing methods on over 76 million acres of Federal lands in Alaska.

``A hunter who cannot comply with humane methods of the trade/sport is simply lazy and undeserving of the right to harvest the flesh of another living thing.

``This is the 21st century, not the 1800s. We must carry out our hunting in a careful and organized fashion to ensure the safety of Alaskan residents as well as the sustainability of the wild animal resources into the future.''

This from Elisabeth Moorehead from Eagle River: ``My husband and I owned and operated a successful wildlife tourism business in Alaska for 27 years. The business still continues in the capable hands of one of our guides. . . . I am writing to convey my displeasure over the content of the joint resolution you recently introduced in response to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations that ban cruel and unsporting methods of killing bears, wolves and coyotes on Federal wildlife refuges in Alaska.''

And from Fran Mauer in Fairbanks: ``Over the last 15 years I have watched the state hunting regulations for wolves and bears get progressively more extreme. These methods go far beyond any common sense, are not supported by science, and have no place in our Alaskan National Wildlife Refuges. This is the result of the special interest lobby of extreme pro-hunting groups. . . . I for one, and many other Alaskan hunters, do not want to see the State of Alaska turn our National Wildlife Refuges into game farms.''

And, finally, from Jeff Fair from Palmer: ``I write you as a 23-year Alaskan wildlife biologist . . . Currently 64 years of age, I hunt and fish and enjoy a permanent license to do so in The Great Land.

``As a biologist, I recognize that predator control does not work in the long run to stabilize or maximize cervid populations. I also recognize that an attempt to repeal U.S. Fish and Wildlife regs on these lands would be an attempt to circumvent, contradict, overturn, or simply break the Federal law that establishes the Fish and Wildlife Service's mission and authority for these lands. And as a hunter I fear for the reputation of the hunting tradition, including conservation and fair-chase, when some service anti-predator techniques are allowed anywhere, including on federal lands.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, just in mild response, I am, I believe, heartened to know--that may be the wrong verb--but, at least, respect my friend and colleague from Alaska's notion or assertion that these terrible, inhumane hunting practices, which we have talked about for the last hour--whether it is gassing wolves in the den or shooting bears from the helicopter or using bait for the bears or many of the iron leg traps--that all these things do not occur in Alaska on the wildlife refuges; that they are illegal in Alaska. If that is so, that is an excellent thing.

I wonder why the need for the Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Fish and Wildlife regulations if none of these are, in fact, happening.

In any case, there is still a legitimate debate about whether the Fish and Wildlife regulation contravenes ANILCA and the state establishment act. Hopefully, this doesn't have to go to court in order to do that, but I think there seems to be enough judicial precedent that if it did go to court, the Fish and Wildlife regulations would be upheld.

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

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