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. President, I rise to encourage my colleagues to rescind a recently promulgated regulation by the Obama administration and to support the corresponding resolution of disapproval that the majority leader just brought up and that we unanimously moved forward to debate, H.J. Res. 69.

There are few, if any, people in the world who love their lands and wildlife more than Alaskans. In Alaska, our land is the lifeblood that sustains us, that feeds our bodies, our families, and our souls. It is a deep and enduring part of our culture.

Our hunting traditions are very much alive in Alaska. Alaskans hunt for food for cultural reasons and even for survival. There are people in my State whose families have called our beautiful and rugged lands home for thousands of years, living side-by-side with more recent arrivals. Alaska has also the well-earned reputation of having one of the best managed, most sustainable fish and game populations anywhere in America or anywhere in the world, for that matter. We have an abundance of wildlife that most States and most countries can only dream of. We do this year after year, generation after generation, through rigorous scientific processes that allow and encourage public participation through our Board of Game, Board of Fisheries, and our Fish and Game Department to make sure we manage our fish and game for sustainability, as required by the Alaska constitution, and that we take into account the needs of our citizens--the needs of Alaskans. It is not an easy process. It can be contentious, but all Alaskans take this very seriously.

In Alaska, we respect the land and everything in it. That special connection and our ability to manage our own lands and resources was explicitly recognized in Federal law when Alaska became a State. The Alaska Statehood Act passed in this body in 1958, specifically granting Alaska the authority to manage fish and wildlife on not only State lands but on Federal lands, unless Congress passes a law to the contrary. By the way, that is the same authority granted to all States. It is granted to Ohio, New Mexico--all States in America have this authority.

Further, in 1980, this body, the Congress of the United States, passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, designating 100 million acres of land, in my great State, as Federal conservation units, including over 70 million acres--I believe larger than the State of New Mexico--as wildlife refuges in one State.

Many Alaskans didn't like this bill. Several saw this as a massive Federal usurpation of our land, but our congressional delegation fought to include explicit provisions in this Federal law that made it abundantly clear that the State of Alaska still had primacy in managing fish and game throughout the entire State--State lands and Federal lands.

When that act was passed, it explicitly stated: ``Nothing in this act is intended to enlarge or diminish the responsibility and authority of the State of Alaska for the management of fish and wildlife on public lands. . . .''

That is pretty clear language, and it is very important language to Alaskans. ANILCA is the statute we are talking about, and that is what we call it in Alaska. That Federal law that passed in 1980 made numerous other commitments to Alaskans about how the Federal Government would not usurp the power of the State or our citizens to live the life we have in Alaska. How quickly the Feds forget. How quickly the Feds forget what this law requires.

On August 5, 2016, the Obama administration's Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule that, No. 1, restricted certain State-approved fish and game management practices; No. 2, limited public input in the wildlife management process; and, No. 3, expanded closure procedures on refuges in Alaska, making it easier to keep people shut out of these Federal lands in our State.

This rule is not based on sound science. Thousands of Alaskans and other Americans opposed it, tried to work with the Feds to get them to moderate it or rescind it, to no avail. It is not based on established wildlife management principles, and it is certainly not based on Federal law. The Fish and Wildlife Service didn't take this action because Alaska's sustainable and abundant populations of fish and game or their habitats were being threatened; it took this action because it wanted to control Alaska's fish and wildlife and because it subjectively disapproved of the way Alaska's game was being managed by our Department of Fish and Game and by the Alaska Board of Game, but the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service does not have this authority.

To make this clear, we are proceeding today with this resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, H.J. Res. 69, to rescind that August 5 Obama Fish and Wildlife Service rule.

The House has already passed this measure under Congressman Don Young's leadership. So I want to encourage all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote in favor of this resolution. It is backed by the force of law, the principles of federalism, and respect for the Alaskan Native people who have been hunting and fishing, subsisting off the land in Alaska for generations. It is also supported by millions of Americans across the country and wildlife professionals in every State in the Union who are committed to the conservation of the abundant species of wildlife in my home State and in theirs.

Why should my colleagues support rescinding this Fish and Wildlife Service regulation? Well, first and foremost, as I have already mentioned, it clearly usurps power from the States

and it ignores Federal law. Unfortunately, faced with a Federal law it disagreed with, the Fish and Wildlife Service took the route other Federal agencies have been taking over the years by simply writing a reg to bypass the will of Congress and the American people, by simply moving forward with their preferred policy preference via regulation and ignoring the law. That is an issue every Member of this body, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, should be concerned about and vigilant to reverse.

It is not a partisan issue. It is a federalism issue. It is a States' rights issue. That is why my State of Alaska, led by a Governor who is an Independent and a Lieutenant Governor who is a Democrat, sued to overturn the Obama administration's litigation. This litigation that my State brought against the Federal Government cites Federal laws like ANILCA, which declares that the State of Alaska ``has jurisdiction over the management of fish and wildlife on public lands throughout the State.'' That is the Federal law.

The law is clear, and of course it makes sense from a management perspective. Alaska is a patch of many different ownerships of our land--State, Federal, and Native lands. The moose and bear in our great State don't know these borders. One agency needs to be in charge, and that is the State agency.

While it might be true that this Obama administration regulation, as written, only applies and impacts Alaska, it is a precedent that should trouble every Member of this body and every State in the Union because if it can be done in Alaska, it can be done anywhere. That is why the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, State agencies charged with managing wildlife in all 50 States and territories from California, New Mexico, to New Jersey all support this resolution. They all support overturning the Obama administration's Fish and Wildlife reg. All 50 States, the people who know these issues, support what we are doing on the Senate floor right now.

A second and related reason for the broad bipartisan support not only in Alaska but across the country for rescinding this Fish and Wildlife regulation is because it significantly reduces the public participation in managing lands and wildlife in Alaska. Before this rule came out, the harvest of fish and wildlife on Alaska refuges was governed by Alaska's Board of Game and Board of Fish, and the process was highly sensible. I have been to Board of Game meetings. It is open to the public and responsive to the public, but this new regulation gives the Federal Government a veto over State regulations issued by the boards, with no public process and no public input.

The rule also makes closures of Federal lands subject more to the whims of Federal officials than to the input of the people they serve. It shuts down the public process, which is critical to the successful stable management of fish and game in my State.

This Federal regulation also undermines subsistence. In Alaska, ``subsistence'' isn't just a word, a catch phrase, or a slogan. It is not what people do for the benefit of tourism. It is critical. The public participation element is critical to the healthy management of fish and game, and it also enables the professionals to learn from the people--particularly the Native people in my State--what we call traditional knowledge in Alaska. As I mentioned, ``subsistence'' in my State isn't just a catch phrase or a slogan. Subsistence encompasses the customary and traditional use of fish, wildlife, plant resources, preserving cultural traditions, supplying basic necessities such as food, firewood, and clothing. It provides for barter, trade, and income for subsistence in the cash-based rural economy. It is serious business in my State. Subsistence in Alaska is life, literally, and it has been so for thousands of years. In so many of my State's villages, there is no grocery store, there is no Costco, there is no Whole Foods market. If one doesn't get a moose in the fall or have enough salmon in the summer that someone catches, they might have trouble surviving in the winter. This is serious business.

In other places in Alaska, where we do have small grocery stores, the costs are often more than twice to four times the national average for basic necessities. President Obama, when he visited Alaska in 2015, went out to the rural communities, and once he saw it, he understood this. When he came to Alaska, he said, ``You're looking at prices that are double, in some cases, or even higher for basic necessities like milk, like orange juice, like other produce. . . . That's part of the reason why the subsistence economy [in Alaska] is so important.''

This is the former President of the United States making this comment.

One wonders why this Fish and Wildlife Service then issued a reg that attacked subsistence. But to be honest, most Americans and certainly most Senators do not fully understand this. Again, due to the tenacity of Alaska's congressional delegation--former Senators, such as Ted Stevens, and current Members, such as Don Young in the House--Federal law recognizes the importance of subsistence in Alaska.

The protection of subsistence rights in ANILCA and other Federal legislation is listed throughout our Federal laws. Specifically, ANILCA states:

The opportunity for rural residents engaged in a

subsistence way of life must continue to be so.

It further goes on to state that the Federal Government's actions in Alaska should have ``the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend on subsistence uses of the resources of such lands.''

This issue of subsistence is important to thousands of my constituents. It is not a theoretical issue, it is critical, but it is now more important to the Alaska Native populations in my State, which is close to 20 percent of my State.

In 2014, the Alaska Federation of Natives ratified a resolution that criticized a proposal from the Federal Government that was similar to the one we are debating today, and they stated the following in their resolution:

Alaska Natives have served as the stewards of their

traditional lands and resources, maintaining healthy and

productive ecosystems for thousands of years, and maintain

the belief that human beings are an integral part of

naturally functioning ecosystems, not separate from them.

That is what all Alaskans believe. Yet, despite Federal laws that emphasize the importance of subsistence to all Alaskans and pleas and letters from hundreds of Alaska Natives who ask the Federal Government not to negatively impact their subsistence way of life and opportunities with this new Fish and Wildlife Service regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service persisted. They promulgated this regulation in the face of opposing voices in Alaska and Federal law that says they do not have the authority to do this.

You know it is targeted for subsistence because in the Fish and Wildlife Service's initial rule, that rule stated that the law and the policy had to ``take into consideration the fact that humans are dependent on wildlife refuge subsistence resources.'' That was the original draft rule. Subsistence matters. That was in there, a nod to Federal law. Guess what happened with the final rule? That entire section on subsistence was removed by the Federal Government, which showed that this law is an anti-subsistence law, which violates Federal law. They did not want Alaskans to subsist off their lands as required by Federal law.

Alaska's attorney general, Jahna Lindemuth, who was appointed by an Independent Governor from my State, said:

These federal regulations are not about . . . protecting

the State's wildlife numbers. These regulations are about the

federal government trying to control Alaskans' way of life.

Hunting is a way of life in Alaska. The Presiding Officer is a hunter and understands that it is cultural and that it provides subsistence and even protection for our citizens.

Let's be clear. The Fish and Wildlife regulation at issue today, which we are debating, is an anti-hunting rule, pure and simple. That this is the case became very clear when the former Fish and Wildlife Service Director, Dan Ashe, who promulgated this regulation, questioned the ethics of our hunters in Alaska in a Huffington Post column. He said that some of Alaska's practices are ``wholly at odds with America's long tradition of ethical, sportsmanlike, fair-chase hunting.'' That is from the former Fish and Wildlife Service Director. One knows where he is coming from on this.

Along these lines, I anticipate some of my colleagues on the other side of

the aisle--I see one of them down here already--are going to come down and start touting this parade of horribles, spurred on by anti-hunting groups to convince our colleagues to vote against this resolution of disapproval--what we want to have passed. You might hear phrases from them like Alaska's practices constitute a ``war on wolves'' or a ``black eye for ethical hunters,'' with the implication that my constituents are not ethical hunters. One might even see my colleagues repeat the false and misleading claims that have been run on TV by certain groups about alleged unethical hunting and game management practices in Alaska. I would like to make a suggestion or two to my colleagues who are coming down here to speak against this resolution of disapproval.

First, please let them try to do so with a sense of humility and a sense of history. Yes, one or two of them may have been accomplished hunters in their own right or are still accomplished hunters in their own right. I respect that. I love to hunt. But that does not mean one has as much or any knowledge or understanding of my State's long history and distinguished record of fish and game management. One might prefer his meat wrapped in cellophane at the grocery store. That is fine, but I ask that one doesn't criticize the thousands of Alaskans who have to hunt for their food and who value hunting as a deep part of their culture.

I would also caution one from making claims that Alaska's wildlife officials allow for unethical hunting and management practices that require the Federal Government to intervene in my State's long history of distinguished fish and game management. Such an argument would be at odds with the consistent and numerous awards the State of Alaska has received for its outstanding management of fish and game year after year after year--American Fishery Society awards, awards from the Department of the Interior, the Wildlife Society, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Those who manage wildlife in Alaska are the best in their field. It is not just Alaskans who take issue or who will take issue with such statements that I am sure we are going to hear on the floor.

Let me read a list of hunting and conservation groups that support this resolution of disapproval, groups that, in other words, support the overturning of the Fish and Wildlife rule at issue today. It is a very long list, and it is actually longer than this: Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, Boone and Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Alaska Outdoor Council, Alaska Professional Hunters Association, American Outfitter and Guide Association, Territorial Sportsmen, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International. The list goes on and on.

These groups represent millions of hunters, conservationists, wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists who represent millions of Americans who are focused on the model of conservation that we all are supportive of, and they are the backbone of habitat and species conservation in our country. These groups--every one of them--are supportive of what we are trying to do on the Senate floor today. These groups certainly do not consider themselves unethical hunters. To the contrary, they care deeply about conservation and abundant wildlife populations not only for themselves but for the generations of Americans to come, and they have dedicated their lives to this. They represent Americans from across the 50 States--Montana, West Virginia, New Mexico, New Jersey. Their values, like the values held by Alaskans with regard to conservation and hunting, should not be doubted and I certainly hope are not going to be attacked on the Senate floor.

In closing, I believe in respectful and informed debate. Sometimes it certainly requires reaching beyond one's own experience to listen to others with opposing views. I took the opportunity to do that just the other day. I had a conversation with the president and CEO of the Humane Society about the issue and resolutions we are discussing today. I know that he and others are leading the opposition to this, but we had a very respectful conversation. We heard each other's views, and although we likely will not agree on this issue, I hope he felt that I talked to him with respect and listened to him because that is what I did.

Perhaps my colleagues who are going to speak against this resolution today should do the same. I would hope that those who come down to the floor to oppose overturning this rule would have picked up the phone and maybe called Alaska's Department of Fish and Game, or talked to a biologist there, or maybe talked to the chairman of the Board of Game and asked if he is an ethical hunter, or maybe called a store in remote Alaska to ask about food prices, or made some inquiries about the lack of stores in dozens of villages that rely on subsistence, or called an Alaska Native leader to see how important subsistence is to his life and his culture.

Maybe my colleagues would have called one of my constituents who wrote in opposing this rule. He is an Alaska Native who lives in rural Alaska and whose grandfather taught him to hunt and fish. Here is what he wrote to us:

Please do not pass these types of regulations that will

change my future. These lands are dear to Alaska Natives, and

I feel that some of the Fish and Wildlife workers are biased

as well as listening to the wrong people. By the ``wrong

people,'' I mean Fish and Wildlife officials who do not

understand my subsistence rights, who do not work in the

villages, who want to take away my right to hunt.

This is about the rule of law, primacy, federalism, and it is about much more than that; it is about real people--people like my constituents.

I urge my colleagues to support our resolution of disapproval and rescind this regulation that violates the law, undermines subsistence in Alaska, and will do harm to my State and other States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in spite of what my good friend from New Mexico has been saying about this resolution, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution.

I came down here predicting that he was going to come down with a parade of horribles, none of which have happened in Alaska--that is a fact--none of which happened in Alaska.

The resolution we have before us is backed by the force of law. The Fish and Wildlife Service did not have the authority to do what they did by passing this regulation, and not one of my colleagues tried to defend this on the basis of legal authority by the Feds because it doesn't exist. So I think that is the starting point.

The principle of federalism. We have had a lot of discussion here by colleagues from New Jersey and New Mexico telling Alaskans, who have a tremendous record on the management of fish and game--they are going to tell Alaskans how to do that, Senators from States that don't know anything about my State. That is the whole principle of federalism, and that is another reason we need to support this resolution.

This rule is about subsistence. Thousands of Alaskans, particularly Alaskan Natives, rely on subsistence. Again, my colleagues on the other side come down here and say that it is not about subsistence. Come up to Alaska. Ask the people who have to live off the land, who need the food to survive in the winter. Tell them it is not about subsistence.

Finally, it is important to recognize just how many other Americans care about what we are doing right now. As I mentioned, literally millions of Americans from every State of the country, represented by groups as diverse as Ducks Unlimited, Boone and

Crockett, and the National Rifle Association, are all supportive of this resolution, as are every Fish and Wildlife Service State agency, including from New Mexico, including from New Jersey. They are all supportive of our resolution.

To have our colleagues come down here and say ``Those Alaskans don't know what they are doing'' when we have the record of well-managed fish and game, awards every year from the Department of the Interior and others--to have them come down here with very little knowledge of my State is not the humility that I think is needed in this body.

So I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. It is backed by law. It is backed by millions of Americans in every State. It is very important to the people of Alaska, particularly those who live a subsistence lifestyle.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back the time.

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. President, I came to speak on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice for the United States Supreme Court, but in listening to my colleague from Florida, I feel like I am missing something because he has described the Affordable Care Act in a way that I do not recognize, and he has talked about a bill that has not even passed the House of Representatives as a fait accompli.

ObamaCare was sold under false pretenses. The President himself said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Oh, yes, by the way, a family of four will see a reduction of its premiums by $2,500. None of those have proven to be true. So we are going to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

I have to tell my friend from Florida to please join us. If he does not like the product that is working its way through Congress, please join us and help us make it better because, right now, all I see from our Democratic friends is sort of like a Pontius Pilate moment--a washing of their hands and letting the Republicans alone do the heavy lifting. We invite them to work with us in a bipartisan way, which is something that did not happen, by the way, in ObamaCare, which was passed on a purely party-line vote, and I think it has proven to be a terrible mistake.

Mr. President, I will yield for a question, but I will not yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield for a question but not for a speech.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Florida that I think there has been a lot of false advertising and scaremongering taking place around the country in trying to convince people that, somehow, they are going to lose their coverage, which is not the case.

We believe we can do better than ObamaCare, which has created a one- size-fits-all healthcare package and has basically denied people the right to choose the kind of coverage that suits them best at a price they can afford.

In Texas alone, a person making about $25,000 a year could spend up to 30 percent of his gross income under ObamaCare. That is a young person, and it is no surprise that many of them have opted out of ObamaCare and simply decided either to pay the penalty or to just become noncompliant because it is unaffordable.

I am sympathetic, certainly, to the genuine concerns of anybody in one's getting appropriate healthcare coverage, but I sure hope people do not succumb to the scaremongering taking place in parts of the country that tells people they are going to be left high and dry.

For example, my friend and colleague said that Medicare was going to be gutted under the House bill. That is not true. Right now, Medicaid is an uncapped entitlement. It is one of the fastest growing sources of Federal Government spending. The bill in the House proposes not to cut it but to restrain its rate of growth. Right now, it is the third largest budget item in the Texas budget. My friends in the Texas Legislature tell me that it crowds out all other spending, including education, law enforcement, and other things--that it just eats up so much money because it is uncapped. What we would propose to do is to leave Medicaid at the current levels but then make sure that it grows according to the Consumer Price Index--and a rather generous one--in medical inflation.

I will say what I said earlier, which is that I do not recognize the bill that my friend from Florida has described. If the House did not pass a bill and if the Senate did not pass a bill, we would still be here, talking about the meltdown of the Affordable Care Act because many insurance companies have simply pulled out of the marketplace. Many people do not have choices. They are forced to deal with, perhaps, the one remaining health insurance company, and in some places they are going to have all insurance companies pull out of the individual market.

I yield for one more question, and then I really need to get to my speech.

Mr. President, I would welcome that any day and every day. The only way we get things done around here in any sort of durable fashion is on a bipartisan basis. But so far, I have seen zero indication from our friends across the aisle that they are interested in working with us. I hope that is a misunderstanding on my part, and I hope going forward we will be able to come up with some bipartisan bills.

The truth is that, given the constraints of the budget process, we are not going to be able to do everything we want to do in this bill that is going to pass the House on Thursday and which we will take up here in the Senate next week. So there is going to be a necessity to do some more, and I hope we can do that on a bipartisan basis.

We also know that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, is working from a regulatory standpoint to try to do everything he can to stabilize the insurance market and to make sure that people continue to have some choices.

I think this is fundamentally a test of our principles regarding whether we actually believe in more choices and competition, and my firm conviction is choices and competition improve the quality of a service and the quality of a product. That is really one of the foundational principles upon which our economy is based. I think it also works in healthcare, but we haven't had that since ObamaCare passed.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Mr. President, I want to speak a little bit about the important hearing on the judicial nomination of Judge Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court that is taking place in the Senate Judiciary Committee even as we speak.

We know that President Trump nominated Judge Gorsuch at the end of January to a seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia was a lion of American law. He was bigger than life. His intellect, his writing, and his wit inspired a lot of young lawyers and not-so-young lawyers and judges and law students over the past decades, and reminded us that judges have a distinct and special and important role in our system of government, but it is decidedly not to be a legislator or a policymaker because they are ill-suited for doing that.

First of all, Federal judges are appointed for life. Judges are not supposed to take public opinion polls to figure out how to rule in a case.

I asked Judge Gorsuch today: Is it proper for a judge to decide in a case in front of him or her who he or she thinks should win and then try to work backward to justify it in a judge's decision?

He said: Well, it is actually just the opposite. What you try to do is to take the facts and the law and you apply them and you respect the outcome, even if sometimes it is not an outcome you would prefer if it were a matter of your personal preference.

What he described, really, is called the rule of law, which has distinguished the United States of America from most of the rest of the world and which has given us our competitive advantage. When people know that we are going to have a legal system that doesn't depend on personalities, doesn't depend on politics, but rather on a written law or Constitution, then people can take confidence in their investments, in their plans, and our economy has been the winner.

There is a Peruvian economist who wrote a book called ``The Mystery of Capital.'' I will just summarize, briefly. I was intrigued by the book and by his thesis. Basically, his argument is the United States is no more entrepreneurial than other parts of the world, but what distinguishes us from much of the rest of the world is what I just said a moment ago: It is the rule of law. For example, if you buy a house and get a title to that house, then you have a legal right to it, and you can defend it against all other claimants or people who might try to say: No, that is really my house. I know that sounds so basic, and we take it for granted, but it really does distinguish our country from others, where the law is really not about law, but it is about politics. It is about who is in power. Well, our laws are designed to protect people who are not in power, including people in political minorities.

I think the greatest legacy of Justice Scalia was a strong belief that the words in the Constitution and laws passed by the Congress matter. He believed judges should apply those texts and not just pronounce their policy preferences in deciding cases. He understood, as I do, that a careful adherence to text ultimately protects our democracy, which is the intention of our Founding Fathers.

I have spent time, like many of my colleagues, talking about the type of judge we need to fill this vacancy--someone who understands the lessons that Justice Scalia taught us--and will apply them faithfully, without regard to persons or personalities or politics. I believe there is no question that Judge Gorsuch is the man for the task. I am confident that the hearings this week will make that clear to the rest of America.

It is interesting to listen to some of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who want to talk about everything other than Judge Gorsuch and his qualifications. They want to talk about President Trump. They want to talk about abortion. They want to talk about same-sex marriage. They want to try to get Judge Gorsuch to prejudge some future case that may come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Well, no judge worthy of that title will tell anybody: Well, if you confirm me as a judge, I promise you this outcome. That is a violation of the most fundamental ethics of a judge, because a judge is not, again, a policymaker, a judge is not a politician; judges aren't about outcomes, but rather a commitment to the rule of law and due process of law in reaching their decisions.

So far, in almost two days in the Judiciary Committee, I think Judge Gorsuch has performed admirably and demonstrated no reason why our colleagues across the aisle can't support him. As a matter of fact, my view is that if you can't vote for somebody like Judge Gorsuch, there is probably nobody that would be nominated by this President that you would vote to confirm. It is hard for me to imagine the nomination getting much better.

We have already learned a lot about the judge. We know of his intellect. We know of his sterling qualifications and his extensive experience. I particularly appreciated his testimony today about access to justice and his concern that people of modest means--low income, the so-called little guy that our friends across the aisle keep talking about. The little guy in America is essentially denied access to our courts because it costs so much and it takes too long, and there have to be mechanisms in place for us to resolve our differences that everybody has access to or else the statement carved in the marble over the U.S. Supreme Court that says ``equal justice under law'' is just a pathetic joke.

So we have a lot to do in terms of providing access to justice. I think somebody with Judge Gorsuch's background--someone who actually has practiced the law and who has represented clients in court and who has been thoughtful about this and so many other topics--is just the type of person that can help us get our legal system back on track, so that saying, that model, ``equal justice under law,'' is a reality.

We know that Judge Gorsuch has spent a decade on the bench and about 10 years in private practice, and he has also worked at the Department of Justice. Like Justice Scalia, he is a steadfast believer in the Constitution laws and that they should be interpreted based on their text; that is, what they actually say.

I asked Judge Gorsuch today: If you don't believe that you ought to interpret the law based on what the law actually says, what would you use as your guide? If you are not going to interpret the Constitution based on what the Constitution says, what are you going to use as your guide?

Well, some of our friends would talk about a living Constitution or judges knowing better than perhaps the elected representatives of the people. To me, that is just misguided. Judges are not philosopher kings or queens. Judges, as I said at the outset, hold a very important but finite role in our system of government. It is our job as the legislature to make the policy. It is the executive--the President's job--to execute the policy. And if we don't like the law, then it is our job to change it, not to look to the Court to say: I am going to let the Congress off the hook, and we are just going to write an opinion and render a judgment that changes the law under the guise of actually judging, actually engaging in more policymaking.

Well, the great thing about somebody like Judge Gorsuch is that the people who admire him also include people who differ from him politically but have seen him in action--people like the former Solicitor General under

President Obama, who said he is ``one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our nation over the last century,'' and someone who ``has always put aside his personal views to serve the rule of law.''

In other words, Judge Gorsuch is the type of judge that we should all be able to get behind, and he is exactly the kind of nominee we would hope to see from any administration. That is why he was previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate 10 years ago when he was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. He was confirmed by voice vote. For people who may not be familiar with the practices of the Senate, that essentially is by unanimous consent, by unanimous agreement, including the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. He thought Judge Gorsuch was good enough for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I would challenge him to identify a reason why he is not well suited for the United States Supreme Court, unless it is based on some political calculation.

As the Judiciary Committee this week considers his nomination, I want to make crystal clear the purpose of the hearing. It is not about pinning the nominee down or asking trick questions or asking the judge to prejudge cases that might come before the Court. We know there have been outside special interest groups who have criticized Judge Gorsuch for failing to rule in favor of one sympathetic constituency or another, but, again, that is not what judges do--or what they are supposed to do. Are they really supposed to find the most sympathetic party to a lawsuit and say: I am going to decide that case for them, and I will figure out the justification for it later. That is not what judges are supposed to do. Judges are supposed to apply the law impartially and fairly and decide the facts and apply the law and render judgments on cases or controversies that become before the court, not write policy at large.

So I think some of these attacks are pretty silly, but they also are a reminder of the importance of these hearings because I really believe this is one of those opportunities to help acquaint millions more Americans with our unique founding story and the unique nature of our Constitution and our Nation of laws.

I see my friend from Tennessee here. I remember something he told me once about telling his constituents that one of the important functions of the Senate was to remind people what it means to be an American. Well, being an American means believing in the rule of law and equal justice for all.

I will close on this because I see my friend from Tennessee here waiting to speak. This is another kind of an interesting statistic I found pretty amazing, and the Presiding Officer, a distinguished lawyer in his own right, can marvel at this as I do.

Judge Gorsuch is no radical. He follows the law wherever it leads: sometimes for the police, sometimes for a criminal defendant; sometimes for the government, sometimes against the government. That is the way the rule of law works. He noted that about 97 percent of the thousands of cases he has decided have been unanimously. As the Presiding Officer knows, the circuit court sits in three-judge panels. The idea that 97 percent of the cases he decided were decided unanimously is pretty remarkable, and he sided with the majority 99 percent of the time. This is nobody out of the mainstream. This is a mainstream judge. So let's be honest and open about it.

I hope our colleagues across the aisle, after this nominee is voted out of the Judiciary Committee, will allow us to have an up-or-down vote on this nomination. It wasn't until the Presidency of George W. Bush in 2000 that somehow the tradition of allowing an up-or-down vote for nominees went out the window and instead some people got together and decided, well, we are going to come up with a rationale to raise the threshold to 60. In other words, a President won't be able to see his nominee confirmed unless not just a majority votes for it but 60 people vote for it in the Senate because of the Senate's rules on cloture closing off debate. That period of our history during the George W. Bush administration was an aberration, and I would hope no one would want to repeat that--again, politicizing the judicial nomination process.

People can vote any way they want, but denying the opportunity for the Senate to vote up or down on a nominee, particularly to the U.S. Supreme Court, is certainly not a road I would hope our colleagues would go down. As they presumably learned this year, after Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, led his conference into the nuclear option, which basically changed the Senate rules by breaking the Senate rules--that is what allowed us to confirm the President's Cabinet with 51 votes, and that is what will allow us to confirm all lower court judicial nominees with 51 votes. So we would think they might have learned the lesson that what goes around comes around and that while you are in the minority one day, you might be in the majority in the not too distant future. What you force the Senate to do in order to do its job may end up biting you in the future. So I hope they seriously consider allowing Judge Gorsuch an up-or-down vote when his nomination comes to the floor sometime around or after April 3.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6 p.m. today, there be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, remaining on H.J. Res. 69; further, that following the use or yielding back of that time, the resolution be read a third time and the Senate vote on the resolution with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded

Mr. President, there have now been two speakers on the floor this afternoon speaking to H.J. Res. 69, which is the disapproval resolution on Alaska fish and wildlife refuge rule. I have come today to speak in strong support of this resolution, which will effectively overturn a rule imposed by the previous administration related to fish and wildlife management on millions of acres of refuge land in the State of Alaska.

I would like to start my comments by acknowledging Senator Sullivan, for his lead on this initiative, and Congressman Young, as he moved this measure through the House just a couple of weeks ago. What we saw in the House measure and the final vote was a bipartisan vote that secured passage through the House, and I thank Congressman Young for his able leadership there.

I also want to thank Senator Sullivan for his comments and for really doing an excellent job in outlining and explaining why this Fish and Wildlife Service rule is bad for Alaska, bad for hunters, bad for our Native peoples, and bad for America.

Like my friend and colleague, I am here to encourage Members of the Senate to see this rule for what it really is. It is a clear departure from Federal law. It is unwarranted regulatory overreach, and, from all accounts, it is a direct attack on States' rights.

Now, we will have discussion back and forth on the floor about various hunting practices, and we will see beautiful shots of wildlife and suggestions that, somehow or other, this is about a specific hunting practice. This is bigger than wildlife refuges in the State of Alaska. This is an issue that is not just isolated or contained in the State of Alaska. This resolution is specific to Alaska, but I would suggest to

my colleagues that for all of those of us who care about States' rights, who care about the promises made to our States about how they operate and how they manage activities in their States, this is something that we must all pay attention to because this is a direct attack on States' rights.

I look at this and suggest that this rule is a solution in search of a problem. Again, there are those who would say: Why is the Senate spending 10 hours to debate practices within a refuge in the State of Alaska? Is this not just so parochial an issue that it ought not take our time? However, I would contend that this foreshadows what is in store for the rest of the country if we are not adamant in ensuring that this rule be repealed by Congress.

Now, for those who may not be familiar with Alaska or gaming management laws within our State or within our national wildlife refuges in general, I think it is important to cover some basic facts and perhaps a little bit of history here to illustrate why this rule is so flawed. Alaska, like every other State in the Nation, holds primary legal authority to manage its fish and its wildlife, including on Federal refuge lands.

So let's not get confused here and think that because we have Federal lands, somehow or other the States do not have primacy when it comes to management of fish and wildlife. Alaska holds legal authority to manage the fish and wildlife within its borders. This is clear. This is unambiguous. Congress explicitly provided that authority specifically to our State in not one, not two, but three separate laws. The first of these is the Alaska Statehood Act; then the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--ANILCA; and the third authority was through the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. In three separate authorities, Congress made it clear: Alaska, you are to manage the fish and wildlife within your borders.

Our Statehood Act gave Alaska the right to manage its fish and its wildlife as soon as the State could assemble a department of fish and game, which we actually did in our first year of Statehood. Then, in 1980, ANILCA, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, affirmed twice that nothing within its text was ``intended to enlarge or diminish the authority of the State of Alaska for management of fish and wildlife on the public lands.''

Again, it is very clear, not only within the Statehood Act, but within ANILCA, that management would be left with the State. The authority to manage our fish and our wildlife--through decisions based on sound science and that make sense for our local communities--is something that we in Alaska take very, very seriously. For us, State management of fish and wildlife is practically sacrosanct. I cannot emphasize that enough. It is one of the key reasons the State of Alaska voted to join the Union, so we have pretty good reason for the emotion and the passion that come with this authority to manage our fish and our wildlife.

I am proud to acknowledge that not only am I the first Senator to serve in the Senate who was born in Alaska; I was actually born in the territory. My parents and my grandparents were engaged in the battle for Statehood. Some think it was about the land. For most of the discussion that I recall from my family, it was all about fish. It was all about the salmon. One of the reasons we fought for Statehood was management of our fisheries. The Federal management of Alaska salmon fisheries prior to Statehood was absolutely appalling, with salmon stocks falling from 113 million in 1934 to just 25 million in 1959. We saw the management from the Federal side, and that experience left Alaskans absolutely committed to State management and the preservation of both fish and game, so we negotiated that for ourselves. We put it into law; we enshrined it into law in several different places. And we expect our Federal agencies to abide by that.

Those were the terms of the deal when we entered the Union as a State: Alaska is to manage the fish and wildlife within our borders. It is our right and our responsibility, and we take that responsibility very seriously. We have an entire department of fish and game dedicated to it and, as Senator Sullivan rightly noted, a department that has been recognized for the good work they do, the strong science they utilize. We are proud of the efforts they make to ensure that this management is done for sustained yield, the principle we stand by in our State's constitution. For decades now, we have done just that, until the National Park Service in 2015 and the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2016 took it upon themselves to propose regulations to take control away from Alaska, despite what was contained in our Statehood agreement, in ANILCA, and in the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act.

The National Park Service's rule is outside the reach of the Congressional Review Act. So while, in my view, that also deserves repeal, it is not the focus of our debate today. Instead, the resolution we are discussing focuses on the Fish and Wildlife Service rule that was finalized over the protests of Alaskans in August of last year. The rule itself was packaged perhaps innocently enough. The Fish and Wildlife Service spoke of clarifying ``existing mandates'' for conservation and biological diversity, and the agency claimed it was outlawing a few methods of predator control, couched its rule as a victory for public participation, and then promised us that it did not change Federal subsistence regulations or impose new regulations on subsistence users.

On the face of it all, it sounded as though it was going to be not so bad--if you take the agency's description at face value. Many who are outside of Alaska are looking at this and saying: Why are you making such a big deal about all of this? The Department of the Interior is just clarifying some hunting rules, so it can't be that big of a deal.

But the answer on that is: Wrong. This is a big deal.

Some of our opponents will allege the repeal of this rule will legalize brutal predator-control practices. What the Senate should know is that it is already illegal for hunters to use certain practices--gas against wolves, traps to harvest bears. You cannot do this on national wildlife refuges in Alaska. So those arguments are false and, unfortunately, serve mostly to distract from what this rule is really about. As I mentioned at the outset of my comments, what this is really about are the States' rights, States' authorities, and, effectively, States' control.

First and foremost, I am here to defend the rights of my home State and all of the States to manage fish and game within their boundaries. The game management rule severely erodes the authority of Alaska to make these decisions, and I think it sets a terrible precedent for the other 49 States. If you think, this rule is just about Alaska, that this is not something you need not worry yourself about--well you really actually ought to be worried. Especially so if you have Federal lands within your State. Your State could be the next one where Fish and Wildlife Service comes in and says: No, it's not going to be you, State, that has this management authority. We're going to come in and tell you what can and cannot be done.

The Fish and Wildlife Service freely admits its rule will impact 54 million acres of refuge land inside the State of Alaska. This is an area 10 times larger than the size of the State of Massachusetts. This is not insignificant. Really, this is truly the camel's nose under the tent.

If Congress allows this rule to stand, it will effectively override U.S. Supreme Court rulings from 1896 and 1979, which held that the States have the power to ``protect and conserve wild animal life within their borders.'' The States' power in this area is subject only to specific Federal authorities articulated by Congress, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The precedent being set for Alaska--and every other State--should be sufficient reason for us to oppose this rule. But I also need to speak to some of the particulars included within it, especially the Obama administration's claim that it would not change or restrict subsistence uses.

This regulation made significant and substantive changes to regulations related to the hunting of bears. While I realize that not everyone may agree with hunting, I urge you to listen to what my colleague from the State of Alaska said in his comments and what

he outlined in terms of subsistence to Alaska Natives, subsistence to those who are in areas so remote that ``rural'' is not even the right way to describe it. We call it Bush Alaska. There are no stores, there is no Safeway, there is no Whole Foods, and there is no Stop-N-Go. There is no place where you can go to get your meat, to get your fish. In many areas there just isn't even a store, much less a store where you can buy Hamburger Helper or whatever it is that you are going to provide for your family. That model just does not exist in certain parts of our State, so what the people who live there do is hunt. That is how they provide for their families. They hunt and they fish and they gather. That is subsistence. That subsistence is not only nutritional sustenance, but for many, it is also their cultural identity, whether you are the ``People of the Caribou,'' the ``People of the Whale,'' or the ``Salmon People.'' The Native people who have been part of this corner of the world for millennia relate to their food source, making sure that not only their traditional diets can continue, but how they are able to practice this subsistence lifestyle matters greatly.

The regulation we are talking about today jeopardizes the ability of many of those Alaskans to sustainably harvest wildlife, to hunt, to feed themselves and their families. So when we think about the Alaska model of management and how it works to achieve healthy populations, this rule we are dealing with right now upsets that balance. It makes significant changes to the types of activities allowed when hunting bears without the support of the State or the traditional user groups. In updating regulations governing public notice and participation, the rule eliminates tools and obligations necessary for meaningful engagement with affected Alaskans. It curtails the use of local knowledge and insights for refuge management. It relies on an arbitrary and unscientific interpretation of the agency's national biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health policy.

The sustainability of Alaska's ecosystem depends on good, sound management--expert management--of fish and game populations. But under this regulation, well-established best practices employed by wildlife management professionals are more vulnerable to what could be unscientific or certainly bureaucratic second-guessing. That has sweeping implications for wildlife populations and for those who depend on them. If left in place, this rule will be applied to the entire refuge system either unilaterally or through litigation, placing our Nation's fishing and hunting traditions at even greater risk.

Those who actively participate in the sustainable management of our Nation's fish and wildlife populations understand the dangers presented by this rule, and they are overwhelmingly opposed to it. Senator Sullivan mentioned a list of the organizations that have voiced their support. I will not repeat many of the names, but it includes the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which represents all 50 States. It includes subsistence users, guides, outfitters, tourists, hunters, anglers throughout the country, and dozens of conservation groups, from the Alaska Outdoor Council and the Alaska Professional Hunters Association to Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club International, the National Rifle Association, and the Boone and Crockett Club. When you have a coalition that is this strong, that is this broad and yet united against a Federal rule, you know something went terribly awry with the regulation.

I would encourage the Senate to see through some of what I consider to be misleading arguments that some of the outside groups are making against us and to really see this rule for what it is--that this Fish and Wildlife Service game management rule for Alaska refuges is the very definition of Federal overreach. It defies the will of Alaskans, while disregarding sound scientific game management principles. It will result in less stable populations of fish and wildlife within our State. It will harm our subsistence users who hunt, not for sport but for their literal cultural sustenance, their nutritional sustenance, and, again, so much of their identity.

I again want to thank those that have been leading on this issue. This is a bad rule that deserves repeal. I would encourage all of my colleagues to look carefully at this. Look carefully at this, not just as a rule that is parochial and limited to just Alaska alone, but look to it within the context of what this does and what it says when it comes to States' rights and States' ability to manage fish and wildlife within their own State borders.

I yield the floor.