[Pages S1864-S1884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. 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

[[Page S1865]]

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

[[Page S1866]]

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I come to the floor to oppose this
effort by my good colleague from Alaska and by congressional
Republicans to, in my view, turn back the clock 100 years on the
management of our native wildlife on our national wildlife refuges in
Alaska.
Since 2002, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has embraced what
some have called a politically driven and even unscientific regime of
intensive predator control. I think it is helpful to look at the views
of a former Governor of Alaska, Tony Knowles, who recently commented in
High Country News:

The most disappointing thing is that the balance of the
views on the Board of Game has disappeared. I tried to work
with a balanced board that reflected subsistence hunters,
sport hunters, guides and conservationists, but now the board
is made up of people who want to make hunting ungulates the
priority for wildlife management.
There's been a focused effort to dramatically reduce
populations of wolves, coyotes, and bears, and the methods
and means they've used are both unscientific and unethical.

That is not my quote, but that of former Governor Tony Knowles of
Alaska.
In addition, in the past decade, the Alaska Board of Game and the
department have turned their back, I think, on a long history of not
only working together between Federal and State agencies but embracing
ethics as central to wildlife management--not just to maintain the
viability of that management but to maintain the support of the public
for that management.
This relatively new approach that actively seeks to eschew the long
history of embracing sporting ethics can best be summed up by a quote
from Doug Vincent-Land, the former director of the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation. He said: ``The
professionals at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game did not feel it
was our role to judge the ethics of these practices.''
The result of this ethics-free approach is now glaringly obvious,
when considering some of the methods of take that have been approved
over time for native predators in Alaska. Shooting mother grizzlies
with cubs, aerial gunning of wolves, killing wolf pups in their dens,
using spotlights at bear dens, baiting of bears, and allowing the
wanton waste of black bear meat are a few of the practices that
Alaska's Board of Game has approved.
Aldo Leopold, the father of modern wildlife conservation, once said:
``Ethical behavior is doing the right thing

[[Page S1867]]

when no one else is watching--even when doing the wrong thing is
legal.''
Now, I know it has become fashionable in some hunting circles
recently to ignore the importance of ethics to our way of life. Yet, if
our greatest leaders are any indication, that is, at best, a slippery
slope to irrelevance.
This cartoon is a good reminder. It is from the early 20th century,
at a time when President Teddy Roosevelt was invited down to
Mississippi for a black bear hunt. When he wasn't successful, they tied
a black bear to a tree. I think that cartoon from that period is a good
reminder of how T.R. viewed the importance of sportsmanship and ethics
in hunting as central to what maintains our credibility. Today,
politicians jump at the chance to embrace his reputation, but too often
they have not followed his example. So while shooting down grizzlies
with cubs may be legal, I suspect the public will never view it as
ethical. I have to wonder what good old T.R. would have to say about
recent decisions to allow things like unlimited bag limits on black
bear cubs or baiting of bears and shooting female grizzlies with cubs.
So why does all of this ethics stuff matter so much to hunters? Why
does it matter to me? It matters because hunters like me are a small
minority of the population in this country. We are less than 5 percent,
by most counts, and we are able to carry on this great tradition
because the vast majority--the nonhunting public, which is 95 percent
of the population--sees us as effective and ethical stewards of our
country's native wildlife. We have embraced the North American model of
wildlife conservation that has literally brought elk, deer, wild
turkey, and species we think of as common today--Canada geese, for
example--back from the brink of extinction, and that public shares in
that success when they enjoy wildlife. That is true, even if they never
hunt, never pick up a fishing poll. We as hunters also have the trust
and the respect of the public because we are willing to literally spend
billions of dollars of our own money to protect, conserve, and manage
those resources with the best available science.
The Alaska Game Board's decision to ignore the latest science on the
importance of predators to healthy prey populations is indicative of a
desire to effectively turn caribou and moose populations into livestock
and to manage for maximum numbers and maximum tag revenue.
Now, ironically, that approach has certainly been ineffective at
boosting and maintaining historically high caribou and moose numbers.
This is an example of a graph of moose population over time. We can
see back in 2002, when these sorts of intensive take measures went into
place: intensive predator control, preintensive management, and
postintensive management. If you can discern a consistent correlation
of an outcome of higher moose numbers there, you are doing better than
I.
This would all be fine if this was just happening on State lands in
Alaska, perchance. But, unfortunately, the Alaska Game Board now seeks
to suppress healthy predator populations on our national wildlife
refuges--the very places set aside to protect and preserve our native
wildlife--even predators, even black bears and grizzlies and wolves.
Let that sink in for a moment.
This is about embracing unscientific wildlife management on the very
refuges that belong to each and every American citizen--not Alaska
State land but our national wildlife refuges.
People save up for years--sometimes decades--to travel thousands of
miles to go to places like the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge so they
can see a grizzly bear fish for salmon. Does it make sense to allow
these kinds of extreme measures of take to allow for grizzlies with
cubs to be killed in those refuges? Will these policies actually
benefit the hunting public? I would argue that they do not.
Not one of my colleagues can deny how much I love to hunt and fish.
Many of my life's best memories have been forged around the campfire
with my friends and family at elk camp. Just this past Christmas break,
both of my boys joined me for what would be my son Carter's very first
elk hunt. This is the picture of us in the Continental Divide
Wilderness Study Area.
After days of hard hunting, hiking miles through the rough and tumble
backcountry of the Continental Divide WSA, my son Carter harvested his
first elk.
He soon learned that the real work starts after you pull the trigger.
He labored long and hard to make sure that every scrap of meat from
that animal made its way from the wilderness to our freezer. Anything
less would be unethical and disrespectful to that magnificent animal.
My son takes great pride in the meals that elk provides for our family
and our friends. He also knows that hunting is conservation and that we
have a responsibility to hand these wildlife resources off to the next
generation unimpaired. I am proud that even at 13 he takes that
responsibility very seriously.
Some of my son's classmates in school are vegetarians. Too many of
those who do eat meat think that it is created, as my colleague from
Alaska said, on a Styrofoam platter wrapped in cellophane. Carter knows
better. As someone who hunts and fully embraces the ideas of
sustainability and ethics, the next generation of sports men and women
couldn't have a better ambassador to this new generation of millennials
for why hunting is actually critical to the future of wildlife.
That, my friends, is what this CRA before us, in my view, puts at
risk.
When you vote to put the Federal stamp of approval on methods of take
that the public views as objectionable--even unethical--when you allow
that ideologically driven style of game management to even permeate the
sanctity of our national wildlife refuges, I don't think that is
standing up for hunters. I fear that it is endangering the future of
something that is critical to culture and way of life.
As I said before, the number of active hunters in the United States
today sits, I think, at around 5 percent, or maybe a little lower--I
hope not. By voting for this CRA, we are risking the confidence of the
general public in our ability as hunters to be the best stewards of our
wildlife resources. That is a risk that I am not willing to take.
So I would urge all of my colleagues to stand up for our Nation's
wildlife, to stand up for our national wildlife refuges, and to vote no
on this proposal.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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

[[Page S1868]]

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

[[Page S1869]]

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

The President's Budget

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Thursday the Trump administration
submitted its first budget blueprint to Congress. The President called
it ``America First, A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.''
The title would seem like a ``Saturday Night Live'' skit if the topic
were not so serious. Like some of the President's tweets, his budget is
a hasty list of appallingly unbalanced, shortsighted, and, I believe,
politically driven priorities.
He proposes to eliminate or drastically cut programs that benefit the
middle class and safeguard its most vulnerable citizens, programs that
protect our environment, programs that promote our interests overseas
but also security at home. Instead, he wants to spend billions upon
billions of taxpayer dollars on a misguided wall along our southern
border and increased spending for the Pentagon.
He says his proposal causes ``strength, security and resolve.'' He
couldn't be more wrong. You don't want to make America ``great again''
at the expense of middle-class families and the most vulnerable among
us. We are not a ``great'' nation if we abandon our shared desire to
cure cancer, the desire to bring an end to Alzheimer's disease or
diabetes. We don't do that by slashing billions for the National
Institutes of Health. You can't switch complex and promising medical
research off and then say: Well, maybe someday later we will just turn
it back on again.
We are not a great nation if we eliminate heating assistance for the
6 million vulnerable households that receive LIHEAP. Some 21,000 of
those households just had to dig themselves out from a historic
snowstorm in my State of Vermont. And we are not a ``great'' nation if
we don't protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.
You don't make America stronger by eliminating the very programs that
strengthen our alliances around the world and make our Nation more
secure. We are not a strong nation if we simply pour more money into
the Pentagon but then renege on commitments to international
peacekeeping and security alliances or slash funding to respond to
humanitarian crises or cut our diplomatic presence around the world.
Interesting enough, when the other body spent millions of tax dollars
to investigate a lack of security in Benghazi and came up with nothing,
this budget slashes huge amounts that could be spent on security in our
embassies, just as they voted to cut out hundreds of millions of
dollars from a Senate budget that would have improved our security.
The President says he prefers hard power to soft power, but it is not
either/or. The notion that soft power is weak or wasteful is mindless.
If you are cutting programs that feed millions or prevent AIDS or treat
tuberculosis and malaria, well, that doesn't help. It makes the world
less stable, less secure.
I am afraid the budget proposal is divorced from reality. It has a
lot of partisan campaign promises. He promises infrastructure
investment--and all of us would agree with that--but then it cuts
critical Federal funds for proven successful State transportation
projects. He claims it will save rural America, but he cuts those
Federal programs that spur rural economic development. That is not a
budget with vision.
We need a serious budget proposal--a proposal that acknowledges the
devastating effects the Budget Control Act and sequestration have had
in our country and a budget that charts a path forward, rather than
doubling down on further cuts on programs for the middle class. We need
a budget proposal investing in our citizens and in our military, not a
proposal that pays for one at the expense of the other.
We have a lot of work to do. I am the vice chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee. I would say we have

[[Page S1870]]

to finish the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bills and then get to
work on fiscal year 2018. Anybody who has been a Governor of their
State would recognize that because they know they have to do it in
their State. We should do it for the United States. To accomplish that,
we need a budget framework that respects the principles in the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, including parity between the defense and
nondefense spending and that, even though they might be politically
popular, doesn't have poison pill riders. We need relief from
sequestration, not more misguided cuts.
This budget proposal takes us backward, not forward. But we can
remind ourselves that it is Congress that holds the power of the purse,
not the President. I have said that, whether we had Democratic or
Republican Presidents. I take the responsibility seriously. I look
forward to working across the aisle with colleagues both on and off the
Appropriations Committee. I want to craft a responsible budget, a
thoughtful budget, a serious budget--one that truly makes us a better
and safer Nation and reflects the values we share as Americans.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
resolution which uses the Congressional Review Act process to overturn
a Fish and Wildlife Service resolution prohibiting certain inhumane
methods of killing bears and wolves within the 16 national wildlife
refuges in Alaska, which cover about 20 percent of the State of Alaska.
I understand the opponents of the Fish and Wildlife Service rule
argue that States' rights issues are at hand, and they are responsible
for the management of fish and wildlife in the State. That is certainly
true within the State, but on Federal national wildlife refuge land,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in charge--just like at Mount
Rainier or Olympic National Park, where the National Park Service is in
charge. I am sure there are times when Pierce County or even Seattle
would like to make rules related to Mount Rainier, but they are not
allowed because it is part of our National Park System. Similarly, the
Fish and Wildlife Service manages our national wildlife refuge system.
The rules in this proposal only apply to those national wildlife
refuge lands in Alaska. They don't cover any other lands in the State.
So this isn't about States' rights. It is about how we can manage these
wildlife refuges to the degree that agencies believe are necessary for
the preservation of the wildlife.
Managing these national wildlife refuges--the 16 Federal refuges in
Alaska--is about ensuring the management policies are consistent with
the purpose of the wildlife refuge. It is not about prohibiting
hunting. In fact, hunting has been allowed, and will continue to be
allowed within these refuges in Alaska, as is the case with most
national wildlife refuges throughout the United States.
As the Senator from New Mexico pointed out earlier, this is about
what people want to see when they go to a national wildlife refuge. Do
they want to see the inhumane killing of bear cubs in their den or
would they like to see the bears and the other fish and wildlife
activity that exists in so many of these beautiful areas?
Another argument that has been raised is that this rule will stop
Alaskans from hunting for subsistence purposes--Native Alaskans who
depend on subsistence hunting. The rule says nothing about this. It
does not affect subsistence hunting. This rule is only about
prohibiting certain methods of predator control in our wildlife
refuges. Some people think this is contrary to responsible wildlife
management practices in other States. But this rule only applies to
national wildlife refuges in the State of Alaska.
The actions that Alaska has authorized on their State lands are so
aggressive, that permitting them on Federal wildlife refuge land would
be counter to the purposes of these national wildlife refuges. I know
one of my colleagues was here citing what they think is already
prohibited under state law, but the Alaska Administrative Code does
allow for carbon monoxide cartridges to be used in humane euthanizing
in these wolf dens and the killing of young animals.
Mr. President, let me read from the relevant provision of the Alaska
Code, which is 5 AAC 92.110, Control of Predation by wolves. Subsection
(h) states that ``carbon monoxide cartridges may be used to humanely
euthanize wolf young in the den in areas under a predation control
implementation plan.''
The next subsection, subsection (i) states that ``the killing of wolf
young in the den, commonly known as `denning,' is prohibited unless the
commission authorizes the killing of wolf young in the den in areas
under a predation control implementation plan.''
That is in the Alaska Administrative Code today, and it is something
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not want to see happen in
national wildlife refuges. The killing methods authorized by the State
of Alaska include killing bear cubs or mothers with cubs, killing brown
bears, including grizzly bears, using bait, killing brown bears using
traps or snares, killing wolves or coyotes and their pups during the
denning season, and shooting bears or wolves from aircraft or
helicopters, using the aircraft to track down the bears or wolves, then
landing and shooting them.
When you see the list of prohibited actions, you have to wonder why
anybody would oppose this rule. Who is advocating for the slaughtering
of wolf pups or bear cubs in their dens, shooting them from aircraft or
using snares to catch them by their necks and kill them? I think my
colleague from New Mexico had a picture of such an event. Who is
advocating for this kind of method?
This is why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy makes sure that
if predator controls used, that they are based on science and not these
inhumane actions. The wildlife rule is not a case of regulating
sportsmen for traditional hunting practices, but it is making sure that
they are doing so in a humane way.
The law requires that the Alaska wildlife refuges be managed to
conserve fish and wildlife populations in their natural diversity, but
Alaska's predator control practices are not consistent with that
management requirement. They are directly opposite to conserving the
natural diversity and are instead promoting the wholesale killing of
predator species. So that is why we oppose this override of the
regulation. I hope my colleagues will turn it down.
If we want to make improvements to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
rule, we can do so by legislation, or by working to change the rule.
But by overturning this rule, you are also prohibiting the agency from
fulfilling their job of protecting the wildlife refuge.
I want to make sure that all our colleagues understand that this is
about protecting wildlife refuges in a humane way, allowing hunting
practices, but doing so in a way that preserves the species.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose this outrageous resolution,
which would overturn a Fish and Wildlife Service ecosystem management
rule for the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. This resolution is a
cruel measure that has horrified many of my constituents, and I share
their strong opposition.
The purpose of our National Wildlife Refuge System is to protect
wildlife across the country. It does so by maintaining sustainable
populations and balanced ecosystems. The Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge is a stunning habitat that attracts hikers, fishers, hunters,
and photographers to take in the beauty of the landscape and enjoy the
wildlife there.
The Fish and Wildlife Service rule simply codifies scientifically
based wildlife management practices. It does not affect subsistence
hunting by rural and Native Alaskans.
By overturning this rule, Congress would permit extreme and cruel
hunting practices that include killing wolves and pups in their dens
and trapping, baiting, and using airplanes to

[[Page S1871]]

scout and shoot bears and cubs. This so-called predator control is
unnecessary and indefensible. Most Alaskans oppose these extreme
practices. The resolution of disapproval would impede the Federal
Government's ability to manage 76 million acres of public lands that
Congress set aside for all Americans.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with balancing multiple
needs in wildlife refuges and conserving natural diversity. Overturning
its rules to allow a small minority of hunters to use cruel and
inhumane practices in a wildlife refuge is wrong. I oppose this
resolution.
Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold her suggestion
regarding the absence of a quorum?
Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington
State for delaying the quorum call.
I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today and to share
some of the conversations I had yesterday before the Judiciary
Committee in regard to the confirmation of a Coloradan, Judge Neil
Gorsuch, who now serves on the Tenth Circuit Court, which is housed in
Denver, CO.
Yesterday began his confirmation hearing before the Senate--the first
step in a process which will ultimately end in his confirmation as a
Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was a great honor to be able to
introduce Judge Gorsuch to the committee. It is a tradition that
Members of the Senate from the home State of the judge nominated to
serve on the High Court be allowed to introduce the nominee--in this
case, a judge of the Tenth Circuit Court. I joined my Democratic
colleague Michael Bennet from Colorado in this tradition and am very
excited to express my support for Judge Neil Gorsuch.
I thought this afternoon I would share some of the comments I gave
yesterday before the committee. I will start by talking about
Confluence Park in Denver, CO.
In downtown Denver, if you look at Cherry Creek and the South Platte
River, they join together. That is where the Colorado Gold Rush began.
When it was first discovered, it started bringing people out to the
West, out to Colorado, to a place now known as Confluence Park, where
the two rivers come together.
At Confluence Park in Denver, if you look, there is a plaque on one
of the walls there that has a poem written on it from Colorado poet
laureate Thomas Hornsby Ferril. It is a poem known as ``Two Rivers''
describing the settlement of the West. The poem ends with this:

I wasn't here, yet I remember them.
That first night long ago, those wagon people
Who pushed aside enough of the cottonwoods
To build our city where the blueness rested.

``Where the optimistic blueness of our Colorado skies rests against
the mountains and the plains'' is a good description of our great
State. We are reminded about how incredibly diverse our great Nation
is, its people and its geography. Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the
Supreme Court helps recognize the diversity in geography, the diversity
of our country, and it helps to recognize that indeed there are highly
qualified jurists who reside west of the Mississippi River.
Judge Gorsuch is a fourth-generation Coloradan. He is a skier. He is
a fly-fisherman. He serves on a court that represents 20 percent of our
Nation's landmass.
Once confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will be only the second Coloradan to
have ever served on the Nation's highest Court. The first Coloradan to
serve on the High Court was Justice Byron White. Justice Byron White
also led the NFL in rushing, which is something Neil Gorsuch won't be
able to claim when he is confirmed but is certainly something that
makes his confirmation as the second Coloradan unique in our history.
Should he be confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will also make history as he
represents the first Generation X Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,
the emerging generation of American leadership.
Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court unanimously by
voice vote in this Chamber in 2006. In fact, 12 current Democratic
Senators did not oppose his confirmation, including three distinguished
members of the Judiciary Committee. Ranking Member Feinstein, Senator
Leahy, and Senator Durbin are all members of the Judiciary Committee
who supported, through voice vote, his nomination. Eleven years ago,
Senator Graham presided over an empty committee dais as Neil Gorsuch
faced his confirmation in 2006. No one showed up. What a difference a
court can make. The level of bipartisan support for his 2006 nomination
is almost unheard of in today's political climate, but when you look at
his record, his writings, and his statements, it is easy to see why
Judge Gorsuch has such overwhelming support.
Judge Gorsuch is not an ideologue. He is a mainstream jurist who
follows the law as written and doesn't try to supplant it with his own
personal policy preferences. As he said, ``Personal politics or policy
preferences have no useful role in judging; regular and healthy doses
of self-skepticism and humility about one's own abilities and
conclusions always do.''
Judge Gorsuch is not an activist judge but, rather, a faithful
adherent to and ardent defender of our Constitution. Judge Gorsuch said
that judges have a ``foundational duty'' to ``do more than merely
consider [the Constitution]. . . . They take an oath to uphold it.''
The judge recognizes that the judiciary is not the place for social
or constitutional experimentation and that efforts to engage in such
experimentation delegitimize the Court. As he said, ``This overweening
addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad
for the country and bad for the judiciary. . . . As a society, we lose
the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the
flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches
can provide.''
Judge Gorsuch has a deep appreciation and respect for the
constitutional principle of federalism and the separation of powers
prescribed by our Founding Fathers. As he stated, ``A firm and
independent judiciary is critical to a well-functioning democracy.''
Judge Gorsuch understands the advantage of democratic institutions
and the special authority and legitimacy that come from the consent of
the governed. As he said, ``Judges must allow the elected branches of
government to flourish and citizens, through their elected
representatives, to make laws appropriate to the facts and
circumstances of the day.''
Judge Gorsuch appreciates the rule of law and respects the considered
judgment of those who came before him. As he said, ``A good judge will
seek to honor precedent and strive to avoid its disparagement or
displacement.''
It is this appropriate temperament, this fidelity to the
Constitution, this remarkable humility that has made Judge Gorsuch such
a consensus pick among Colorado's diverse legal and legislative
communities.
Former Colorado Senator, Democrat Ken Salazar, Secretary of the
Interior under Barack Obama, in praising Judge Gorsuch's temperament,
said during his circuit court confirmation:

[A] judicial nominee should have a demonstrated dedication
to fairness, impartiality, precedent, and the avoidance of
judicial activism--from both the left and the right. I
believe that Mr. Gorsuch meets this very high test.

A very prominent Colorado lawyer and former adviser to President Bill
Clinton said:

Judge Gorsuch's intellect, energy, and deep regard for the
Constitution are well known to those of us who have worked
with him and have seen firsthand his commitment to basic
principles. Above all, this independence, fairness, and
impartiality are the hallmarks of his career and his well-
earned reputation.

Hundreds of prominent liberal and conservative Colorado attorneys
support Judge Gorsuch, writing this bipartisan letter of support
praising the judge:

We hold a diverse set of political views as Republicans,
Democrats, and Independents. Many of us have been critical of
actions taken by President Trump. Nonetheless, we all agree
that Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally well qualified to join
the Supreme Court. He deserves an up-or-down vote.

The people who know him best in Colorado--they have worked with him

[[Page S1872]]

in the Tenth Circuit Court, and they have worked with him in private
practice--believe that he deserves an up-or-down vote, believe that he
is exceptionally well qualified to join the Supreme Court.
One of the individuals, one of the lawyers, one of the Democrats who
signed that very letter, who wrote this phrase, was a Democrat who was
the cochairman of the host committee for the Democratic National
Convention in Denver in 2008 that saw the nomination of then-Senator
Barack Obama to be the Democratic candidate for the 2008 ticket.
Colorado's former Democratic Governor Bill Ritter and former
Republican Attorney General John Suthers jointly said:

It is time to use this confirmation process to examine and
exalt the characteristics of a judge who demonstrates that he
or she is scholarly, compassionate, committed to the law, and
will function as part of a truly independent, apolitical
judiciary. Judge Gorsuch fits that bill.

Judge Gorsuch has a consistent record of applying the law fairly, and
his reputation among his peers and lawmakers is evidence of it.
According to the Denver Post, Marcy Glenn, a Denver attorney and
Democrat, recalls two cases before Gorsuch in which she represented
underdogs, and she said: ``He issued a decision that most certainly
focused on the little guy.''
That same article cited another example. ``Judge Gorsuch can't be
pigeonholed as either pro-prosecution or pro-defense,'' said Peter
Krumholz, a Denver appellate attorney who reviewed the nominee's
criminal law record. ``He is very independent and will not hesitate to
rule in favor of a criminal defendant's rights when he thinks it's
warranted by the Constitution.''
For all these reasons cited today and the many reasons that have been
cited over the past several weeks, I am certain Judge Gorsuch will make
Colorado proud and that his opinions will have a positive impact on
this country for generations to come.
I look forward to Judge Gorsuch receiving a fair hearing today,
tomorrow, and after that, to working with my distinguished colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to expeditiously confirm his nomination.
Thomas Hornsby Ferril, a great poet laureate, wrote another poem.
This one is memorialized on a mural painted in the rotunda of the
Colorado capitol. It ends with these words: ``Beyond the sundown is
tomorrow's wisdom. Today is going to be long, long ago.''
The wisdom of Neil Gorsuch, guardian of the Constitution, will serve
our Nation well for generations to come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Remembering Warren D. Blaylock

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Warren
Blaylock, a friend and true public servant who was a lifelong resident
of Crawford County, AR. Warren was a World War II veteran and someone I
admired greatly for the vital role he played in his community for
decades.
Born in 1921, Warren grew up near Alma, AR, and knew the harsh
realities that many Americans encountered during the Great Depression.
He graduated from Alma High School and went on to join the Army during
World War II. During the war, he served as a combat medic with the 67th
Evacuation Hospital. His unit landed at Normandy just days after the
Allied forces stormed the beaches on D-day and went on to follow the
Allies as they marched through Europe. Warren was promoted to first
sergeant while serving in Europe, and he received several awards and
commendations, including two Bronze Stars, the Superior Unit Award, and
the Combat Medical Badge.
I am so thankful for his service alongside so many others in the
``greatest generation'' as they risked their lives in the defense of
freedom.
Even after he left the service, Warren spent the rest of his life
giving back to his community and advocating for causes he believed in.
After returning home from the war, he attended the University of
Arkansas and earned a bachelor's degree in business. In his
professional life, he was vice president and general manager of the
Derrel Thomas Company in Van Buren, AR. Still, Warren found time to
participate in numerous civic organizations within the community. He
was an active member of the Alma United Methodist Church for decades
and served on the Methodist Health and Rehabilitation Board for 41
years. Additionally, Warren served on various other boards and
organizations and was a pillar in the community. Perhaps most notably,
he was a member of the Rotary Club--first in Van Buren and then in Fort
Smith--for 54 years and maintained perfect attendance. This is just one
example of Warren's dedication to serving and giving back to Arkansas.
While Warren never sought recognition for the work he did on behalf
of his community, his contributions were noticed and recognized by the
city of Alma, as well as on the regional and State levels. He was
inducted into the Arkansas Senior Hall of Fame in 2013. In 2015, I had
the honor of participating in the ceremony where Warren was inducted
into the Arkansas Military Hall of Fame on the basis of his honorable
military service and exceptional State and community service. This was
yet another reminder of how loved and valued Warren was by so many
people whose lives he touched.
As active as he was, Warren always enjoyed spending time on his ranch
tending to his livestock. In fact, he was also a talented auctioneer
who would lend his skills to various charitable auctions and events.
A devoted follower of Christ, a wonderful father and family man, a
respected humanitarian, and a rock within his community, Warren will be
greatly missed by many. We wish his family, friends, and loved ones
comfort as we all mourn his loss, but we also take great joy in knowing
just how profound an impact Warren had on the lives of so many others.
He leaves behind an incredible legacy of love, devotion, and service
that will last for many years to come.
I very much appreciate Warren's service and even more his friendship,
encouragement, and the amazing example he set. I will miss him and the
vital role he played in his community and in Arkansas. He leaves a huge
void that will be hard to fill, but I hope all those who witnessed his
committed service to his fellow man will join me in resolving to live
and love more like Warren as a way to honor him and his legacy.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

TrumpCare

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we have seen TV clips about various
Members and Senators around the country having townhall meetings. For
example, three of our colleagues this past weekend--Indiana was one of
them--had tremendous townhall meetings with a good exchange of
information.
With this looming House of Representatives healthcare bill, which I
refer to as TrumpCare, since the President has endorsed it, I wanted to
see a particular group in our society who is extremely vulnerable and
those are the older Americans who are not 65--not old enough to be
eligible for Medicare. Now, be careful because there are people lurking
in these halls and the administration who would like to raise Medicare
eligibility from age 65 to 67. But that is not what is confronting the
House of Representatives; it is what is going to happen to those people
below the age of 65 for their healthcare. Under current law, once they
hit 65, they are eligible for Medicare.
I reached out to a particular group of Floridians. These are folks
whom I did not know that our offices in Florida had become aware of
because they had written about the healthcare debate that is going on
and, in many cases, had described their circumstances.
Yesterday, the group of 8 or 10 whom we had in my Orlando office were
all in the age range of 50 to 64. I want to tell the Senate about this
group of people because, if approved in its current form, the House
healthcare bill, TrumpCare, would dramatically increase healthcare
costs for folks in that age group, 50 to 64. Those are folks who either
get their healthcare through expanded Medicaid or they get their health
insurance through healthcare.gov, which is the exchange, whether it be
on the State exchange or the Federal exchange because the State does
not participate. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a 64-
year-old making $26,500 could see their

[[Page S1873]]

healthcare costs go from $1,700 a year, which they pay now under the
Affordable Care Act, all the way up to $14,600 a year under the House
plan, TrumpCare. That is a dramatic jump, obviously. Do we think that
is really too much of an extreme example?
I want to tell you what these people said. If you look at what the
House is proposing, the dramatic rise in cost is due in large part to
two provisions contained in the House bill, one that would allow
insurers to charge older Americans up to five times as much as younger
people; the second one caps the Federal tax credits meant to help
seniors pay for the rising cost of health insurance. Federal tax
credits is a fancy way of saying ``subsidy.'' So if you are a senior
and you are above 138 percent of poverty, which for a single individual
is approximately $16,000 a year--by the way, who making $16,000 a year
can afford health insurance? That is why we need the remaining 19
States, my State of Florida included, to expand Medicaid up to that 138
percent of poverty. But if someone is between that level and all the
way up to 400 percent of the poverty level, which for a single
individual is about $46,000, $47,000 a year--in that zone of 138
percent of poverty up to 400 percent of poverty, there are these tax
credits or subsidies. The one with the lower income gets more of a
subsidy in order to buy private health insurance on the private
marketplace through the exchange. As they get up to 400 percent, a
person making $46,000 or $47,000 a year--can they really afford health
insurance? Not the real cost, unless it is some huge deductible plan
that doesn't give them much. That is why these folks need some
assistance. That is in place. That is the law. That is the Affordable
Care Act, which has been so maligned over the last several years.
Aside from health insurance, there is the expansion of Medicaid that
has helped a lot of people. There are still 4 million people in this
country who would benefit if those 19 remaining States would expand
Medicaid up to 138 percent. They are left in the cold. They are not
getting health insurance; they are not getting healthcare. They are
eligible to have it, and the Federal money is there to draw down to
enable them to have that Medicaid, but 19 States, including my State of
Florida, have decided not to expand it.
With all of that as background, I asked these folks to come in.
According to the AARP, there are millions of Floridians in that age
group of 50 to 64 who currently receive Medicaid or tax credits to help
them pay for the insurance through healthcare.gov; there are millions
who are eligible. So the group came in, and here's what I learned. I am
going to give you some personal vignettes.
Marshall Stern is a 61-year-old heart transplant survivor who lives
in Kissimmee, FL. Marshall has had a serious heart condition since he
was a young man. Three years ago, his condition worsened, and it
resulted in several hospitalizations, after which he was told he would
need a heart transplant. Since he is on full disability, he was told
that he had to enroll in Medicaid or he would not be eligible for the
transplant. Just the medication for the posttransplant operation costs
around $100,000 a year, which, obviously, Marshall would not be able to
afford without Medicaid coverage. He also is going to have to take this
medication for the rest of his life if he is going to live. He worries
that the House TrumpCare bill will turn Medicaid into a block grant
program, which is a fancy way of saying: We are going to cut it off,
and you are not going to get any more money, and you are going to have
to finance it from your own State resources. Governors and State
legislatures are going to have to share more of the burden of
healthcare costs. He is worried that if that House bill passes and
Medicaid is threatened as we know it, he is not going to be able to
have the medications he needs to stay alive. This is what Marshall told
me, and it was very dramatic. He said: ``It is as good as saying that I
die.''
For the rest of us who are not facing that, imagine having a fellow
tell you that. This is serious business.
Let me tell you about Susanna Perkins. She is a 62-year-old living in
Altamonte Springs. Susanna's husband lost his job in 2009, and she lost
her employer-provided health plan during the recession. The couple blew
through their IRA, and they ended up selling nearly everything they
had.
They eventually moved out of the country to save money, but in 2014,
they decided to move back. Why? Because the Affordable Care Act passed,
and the ACA made it possible for them to afford health insurance again.
This is what Susanna said:

If they shred [the ACA] like they're [threatening] to,
we're going to be hightailing it out of here, because dealing
with the health care [costs] and insurance makes you sick.
We're getting by, but if the ACA goes away, and if they make
these changes they're talking about, we'll be uninsured
again.

I was going to show you a picture. These are the folks whom I met
with yesterday. I will not point out the individuals, and I am going to
talk about some of the others, but you can see almost everybody. There
is one person who is outside the photograph. But we sat down for an
hour's conversation, and I heard their stories.
I wish every Senator and every Member of Congress would go out and
talk to people who are real people with real problems and understand
how petrified they are. These folks look like our neighbors and our
friends. They look like the people whom we go to church with. They look
like the people who have children or grandchildren whom we play with,
and they are petrified. They are scared to death that they are not
going to have healthcare.
So let me tell you about another one of these ladies. Terri Falbo is
a 59-year-old living in the Orlando area. She moved to Florida back in
2012 to take care of her elderly mother and disabled sister. For 25
years she had good health insurance through her employer where she
lived up north, and she rarely used health insurance. After losing her
job in 2006, as we went into the beginnings of the recession, she
purchased an individual insurance policy that cost her $500 to $650 a
month. Prior to the ACA, she had to make withdrawals from her
retirement account. She had to max out her credit cards to pay for the
premiums. As a result, she depleted all of her reserves and all of her
retirement funds. Since the Affordable Care Act was implemented, she
has had an affordable policy because she qualifies for the monthly
subsidy of over $600, bringing her premium payments to $70 a month with
a zero deductible. She could have gotten a policy with a $5,000
deductible for $3 a month. At her age, she needed assurance that she
would be able to have the healthcare she needed, so she paid $70 a
month because of the subsidy. Yet that is not what is protecting her in
the House TrumpCare bill.

Under that proposed healthcare plan, her maximum subsidy would be
less than $300 a month, which means she would end up paying $4,000 more
per year--an amount that she simply cannot afford. That is what she
told me: ``I cannot afford it.'' She said she would have to go without
health insurance instead. Before the ACA, she was desperately trying to
have health insurance, and she depleted all of her retirement funds.
There is another lady who is sitting around that table in the picture
I showed, Nancy Walker. She is a 51-year-old self-employed actor who is
living in Kissimmee. She is active. She is healthy. She chose to pursue
a career in the arts. The unstable nature of her profession has often
left her unable to afford health insurance. So she has gone without it
most of her adult life as an artist, as a performer.
Since the ACA took effect, however, she has, finally, been able to
afford health insurance, thanks to the subsidies. She told me that it
has been a relief for her to be able to go to the doctor not only for
checkups but, actually, when she has a problem, to fix it.
If Congress passes the House TrumpCare bill, her premiums are going
to go up. She has no doubt that she will, once again, be unable to
afford health insurance and healthcare. She told me that she fears
simple health issues will fester, becoming serious, chronic, and
expensive to treat. Remember, I said they were petrified--that they
were scared to death. There is an example. Finally, she has health
insurance after all of these years of going without because she did not
have an employer who paid for her.
Let's take another one. Marilyn Word is a 63-year-old retiree living
in Orlando. Marilyn lives mainly off of Social Security payments but is
not

[[Page S1874]]

old enough to qualify for Medicare. She is under that magic year of age
65, at which one is eligible.
After retiring, Marilyn enrolled in an insurance plan through the ACA
exchange, and she is eligible for annual tax credits to help her pay
for her insurance. Marilyn told me that she was extremely worried about
the increased premiums that she would likely have to pay under the
House TrumpCare plan.
I will give you another example of a lady who is sitting around that
table. Sharon Brown is a 58-year-old widow. She lives in the Orlando
area. Since her husband's death, Sharon has been dealing with several
medical issues and pulling money out of her retirement account to pay
for her current plan. She has a nest egg from her husband's life
insurance money, but due to her health condition, she will likely need
long-term medical care. This is what she told me:

My premium's pretty high because I've got multiple medical
conditions that make it so I cannot work. I've done a lot of
reading on this . . . and the cost of my healthcare [under
the TrumpCare plan] will amount to double what I make right
now in income.

She looked at me with this pained expression on her face and said:
``It's very scary, and the anxiety that goes along with this happening
right now is making it worse.''
Sharon told me that she is a lifelong registered Republican--she
volunteered this--and she said that the bill being considered now is
forcing her to reconsider her party. She said:

I'm changing my political affiliation to independent. I
want to vote my conscience.

When one puts faces to these stories--to these people about whom I
have just talked and about whom we just talked yesterday--the House
TrumpCare plan ends Medicaid as we know it because it cuts off the
amount going to the States.
I understand that in the House, in trying to fix up some things just
last night, they filed an amendment in an attempt to address some of
the problems. One of the things they were trying to fix would allow
States to choose between capping or block-granting the Medicaid
Program. Under either proposal, the Federal Government is going to be
contributing less to the States, and that means more money will have to
be picked up--the tab--by the States. Just ask the Governors how much
more they can pick up.
I urge our House and Senate colleagues to join all of these people
whom I have talked about and vote as Sharon said--with their
consciences on what they are going to do to folks like them. Gutting
Medicaid and forcing struggling, older Americans to pay more for health
insurance is simply not the right thing to do. For a change, we ought
to be trying to do the right thing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The majority whip.

Repealing and Replacing ObamaCare

Mr. CORNYN. 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. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield since he has
invoked my name?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will yield for a question, but I will
not yield the floor.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I do not intend for the Senator to yield
the floor, and he is my friend.
The Senator started out by saying he was missing something. Yes, he
missed the first part of my speech, during which I talked about these
folks in the age category of 50 to 64, who are not eligible for
Medicare.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will yield for a question but not for a
speech.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am about to ask the question.
I want to introduce the Senator to these people in that age group of
50 to 64. In fact, they told me stories that had them scared to death.
Would the Senator believe that they believe that they are going to
lose coverage?
Mr. CORNYN. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Texas, and he knows my affection for him.
The Senator has stated that he would like, in a bipartisan way, to
fix the current law. Would the Senator believe, if there were a
genuine, bipartisan attempt to fix what needs fixing instead of
repealing and replacing it with something that has people petrified,
that he could find that bipartisan consensus?
Mr. CORNYN. 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.

[[Page S1875]]

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

[[Page S1876]]

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, later today the Senate will vote on
H.J. Res. 69, and I am here to state as strongly and emphatically as
possible my opposition to this misguided and unwise measure.
As a Senator who fights to preserve and protect the vast diversity of
American wildlife and honor the natural beauty of our Nation's great
refuges, I urge my colleagues to reject the effort to revoke a
commonsense rule of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This rule of
the FWS is designed to prevent the use of cruel, unsporting, and
inhumane killing methods on Federal land. It is really that simple, and
repeal of it is an outrage.
Proponents of H.J. Res. 69 have attempted to frame this debate as an
effort by the Federal Government to usurp State power, but that
argument is simply absurd. The rule at issue is about Federal
management of Federal land, Federal control over land owned by the
Federal Government, pure and simple. The rule, which took effect in
September, does not restrict subsistence hunting or normal hunting
practices. It does not imperil public safety or impede on defense of
property. It simply prevents brutal, cruel, barbaric hunting methods
that target vulnerable bears, wolves, and coyote from occurring on
lands that were intended to provide refuge for these animals.
``Refuge'' is the key word.
This resolution subverts the judgment of professional wildlife
managers to adopt sensible wildlife management actions that are based
on the best available science. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
rule is undermined, any State would be permitted to allow egregious
killing methods on these wildlife refuges, which is the one category of
Federal lands specifically set aside to benefit wildlife. That is its
singular purpose.
I will oppose this legislation because I believe in preserving our
Nation's natural ecosystem and the constitutional responsibility of the
Federal Government to manage Federal lands for all citizens and prevent
the inhumane treatment of our Nation's most iconic wildlife.
This rule bans the killing of wolves and their pups at their den
sites in springtime when they are most vulnerable. It bans the killing
of sleeping black bear mothers and their cubs while they are
hibernating in winter--not exactly fair sport and certainly damaging to
our environment. The rule also bans the baiting of grizzly bears, which
involves the use of toxic, rotting food or grease to lure and acclimate
bears to a certain area so that trophy hunters can get a point-blank
shot. It prohibits the use of traps such as steel-jawed traps or
snares, which cause animals to suffer injury as they fight the trap or
even slow and painful death from starvation or exposure. It prohibits
using airplanes and helicopters to scout, land, and shoot brown or
black bears. These practices are not only cruel and inhumane, they are
really unsporting and have no place in a civilized society.
This resolution would foreclose our wildlife managers from making
Federal wildlife management decisions. It will undoubtedly affect the
future of all American wildlife, including regulating

[[Page S1877]]

inhumane practices on Alaska national wildlife refuges even though
those practices may be recognized as cruel and unsustainable.
All in all, voiding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule would set a
dangerous precedent for the management of public lands across the
country. Time and time again, our Federal courts have held that the
Federal Government has the authority to regulate wildlife on Federal
lands and cannot be superseded by initiatives at the State level. This
Federal rule explicitly prohibits only these particularly gruesome and
egregious methods of hunting or other kinds of practices on national
wildlife refuges. It does not apply to hunting in State-owned
wilderness or to rural Alaskan practices for residents who hunt for
subsistence.
Regardless of my colleagues' claims, there is not a Tenth Amendment
issue here, and the case law clearly demonstrates it, from the Supreme
Court decision in 1976 that held that ``the Property Clause also gives
Congress the power to protect wildlife on public lands, state law
notwithstanding''; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which followed
it; and just last year, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
repeated the Supreme Court's well-established jurisprudence on the
supremacy clause and the property clause.
Neither the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act nor the
Alaska Statehood Act grants any State official the power to overrule
these Federal land managers' decisions.
Putting aside the legal issues--and there are none that really argue
in favor of sabotaging this Fish and Wildlife Service rule--it is the
right thing to do for us and for our future. This legislation would
essentially reject our authority and our responsibility and our
obligation to future generations to promote humane wildlife management
practices. It is not only a matter of our law but who we are and what
kind of society we believe we should have.
I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this abhorrent and
appalling legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, President Trump's nomination of Judge
Neil Gorsuch to be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court is being
considered this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Soon, the
nomination is likely to move to the floor for debate.
Some have suggested that instead of allowing a majority of Senators
to decide whether to approve the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, there
should be first a cloture vote to determine whether to cut off debate.
Cutting off debate requires the approval of 60 Senators, so if 41 of
the 46 Democratic Senators vote not to cut off debate, there would
never be an up-or-down majority vote to approve Judge Gorsuch. In other
words, the 41 Democratic Senators would have filibustered to death the
Gorsuch nomination.
Filibustering to death the Gorsuch nomination--or any Presidential
nomination, for that matter--flies in the face of 230 years of Senate
tradition. Throughout the Senate's history, approval of even the most
controversial Presidential nominations has required only a majority
vote. For example, in 1991 President George H.W. Bush nominated
Clarence Thomas to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The
debate was bitter. The Senate confirmed Judge Thomas narrowly, 52 to
48. Although the Senate rules allowed any Senator to try to filibuster
the nomination to death, none did. In fact, Senate rules have always
allowed Senators the option to filibuster to death a Presidential
nomination; yet it has almost never happened. According to the former
Senate Historian, with one possible exception, which I will mention in
a minute, the number of Supreme Court Justices in our country's history
who have been denied their seat by filibuster is zero. The number of
Cabinet members in our country's history who have been denied their
seats by filibuster is zero. The number of Federal district judges in
our country's history who have been denied their seats by filibuster is
zero. And until 2003, the number of Federal circuit judges in our
country's history who have been denied their seats by filibuster was
zero.
Senator Everett Dirksen did not filibuster President Lyndon Johnson's
Presidential nominations. Senator Robert Byrd did not filibuster
President Reagan's nominees. Senator Howard Baker did not filibuster
President Carter's nominees. Senator Bob Dole did not filibuster
President Clinton's nominees. During most of the 20th century, when one
party controlled the White House and the Senate 70 percent of the time,
the minority never filibustered to death a single Presidential nominee.
On the other hand, there have been plenty of filibusters on
legislation--so many that in 1917, the Senate adopted a cloture rule as
a way to end filibusters. The rule was amended in 1949, 1959, 1975,
1979, and 1986--always in response to filibusters on legislation, never
on nominations. It was the 1975 change that established the current
cloture standard of 60 votes to end debate except on amendments to the
standing rules of the Senate.

Filibustering a Presidential nomination has always been treated
differently than filibustering a legislative matter. The filibuster of
legislation is perhaps the Senate's most famous characteristic. It has
been called ``democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head
off.'' As the actor Jimmy Stewart said in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington,'' ``Wild horses aren't going to drag me off this floor
until those people have heard everything I've got to say, even if it
takes all winter.'' That was Jimmy Stewart in ``Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington.''
The late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia described the
importance of the legislative filibuster in a different way. He said in
his last speech:

Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing
body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the
protection of minority rights. Senators have understood this
since the Senate first convened.

In fact, the whole idea of the Senate is not to have majority rule on
legislation. Throughout Senate history, the purpose of the legislative
filibuster has been to force consensus on issues, to force there to be
a group of Senators on either side who have to respect one another's
views so they work together and produce 60 votes on important matters,
as we did on the 21st Century Cures bill and as we did on the bill
fixing No Child Left Behind.
Nominations have always been treated differently from legislation.
For example, under rule XIV, any Senator could bring legislation
directly to the calendar bypassing committees. There is no such power
for nominations. Senate rules allow debate and therefore the
possibility of filibuster on a motion to proceed to legislation. Debate
is not allowed on a motion to proceed to nominations.
In summary, while Senate rules have always allowed extended debate or
filibusters, the filibuster was never used to block a nomination until
recently. As I mentioned earlier, it was never used to block a Cabinet
nomination, never used to block a Federal district judge, and until
2003, never used to block a circuit judge, and never used to block a
Supreme Court Justice in the country's history, with one possible
exception. That was in 1968, when President Johnson sought to elevate
Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice. When it became clear
the Senate majority wouldn't agree, Johnson engineered a 45-to-43
cloture vote so forces could save face and appear to have won
something. Fortas then asked the President to withdraw the nomination.
Other than the Fortas nomination, the filibuster was never used to
block any judicial nomination until 2003 and 2004, when Democrats
decided to use the 60-vote cloture requirement to block 10 of President
George W. Bush's nominations. This unprecedented action produced a
threat by Republicans to change the Senate rules, to make it clear that
only a majority vote is required to approve a Presidential nomination.
There was a negotiation and eventually five of Bush's nominations were
approved, five were blocked and the rules were not changed. Then, in
2011 and 2013, Republicans returned the favor--as often happens around
here--by seeking to block 5 of President Obama's nominees for the
circuit court by insisting on a 60-vote cloture for

[[Page S1878]]

each. Republicans alleged that President Obama was trying to pack the
circuit court in the District of Columbia with three liberal judges.
To overcome Republican objections, Democrats invoked the so-called
nuclear option. They broke the Senate rules to change the Senate rules.
The new rule eliminated the possibility of 60-vote cloture motions for
all Presidential nominees except for the Supreme Court.
That is where we stand today. There have been other examples of
minority Senators filibustering nominations to death, all of them
during the last three administrations and all involving sub-Cabinet
nominations. Of course, there have been delays in considering
nominations. My own nomination in 1991 as U.S. Education Secretary was
delayed 51 days by Democratic Senators. Of course, I thought
unnecessarily.
President Reagan's nomination of Ed Meese as Attorney General of the
United States was delayed a year by a Democratic Senate. No one has
ever disputed our right in the Senate, regardless of who is in charge,
to use our constitutional duty of advice and consent to delay and
examine and sometimes cause nominations to be withdrawn or even to
defeat nominees by a majority vote.
As we approach a vote on Judge Gorsuch on the floor of the Senate, it
is useful to remember that the tradition of the United States Senate,
for 230 years, has been to treat legislative matters and nominations
differently. Filibuster to death legislation, yes. Filibuster to death
Presidential nominations? No. Should the Gorsuch nomination come to the
floor soon, as I believe it will, overwhelming Senate tradition
requires that whether to approve it should be decided by a majority
vote of Senators, and there should be no attempt by the minority to
filibuster the nomination to death.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise to join my voice with a growing
chorus of citizens, as well as members of the scientific community and
colleagues, who are deeply disturbed by this CRA to repeal vital
wildlife protections from Federal land in Alaska.
Before I speak on this CRA, I would like to be clear that I am not
someone who believes all regulations are good. In fact, I don't believe
we should be trying to regulate our way out of all of our problems. I
am proud of the work I have done, with people on both sides of the
aisle, in an effort to make our government work smarter and more
efficiently for the benefit of my constituents in New Jersey, as well
as all Americans, but today I am profoundly disappointed.
Instead of working to create bipartisan policies that will serve all
Americans, we are now considering a CRA resolution--unfortunately, one
of many ones of this type--that prioritizes special interests above the
good of the public, and it is deeply unpopular, in fact, with the
public at large.
I oppose this CRA that would repeal the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's rule
called the non-subsistence take of wildlife on national wildlife
refuges in Alaska rule. The rule was finalized by the Fish and Wildlife
Service in August of 2016, with the clear goal to forever ban
unnecessary and extremely cruel methods of killing bears and wolves and
other animals on more than 70 million acres of public land managed
under our Federal National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska.
Let's be clear. When it says the word ``take''--that it prevents the
``take'' of wildlife--that means the killing of wildlife. Specifically,
the rule prevents inhumane killing of animals on our wildlife refuges.
Examples of the rule are: prohibits the killing of mother bears and
their cubs. It prevents the killing of wolves and pups in their dens.
It prohibits using planes to track and kill bears. It prohibits using
snares to strangle and kill bears, steel traps to kill bears, and it
prohibits baiting and killing of grizzly bears.
Why was this rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the
first place? Our national wildlife refuges are public lands that exist
for the benefit of all Americans. Refuge lands are managed by the Fish
and Wildlife Service for the express purpose of conserving natural
diversity in wildlife populations. This means that any management
activity that favors certain species over others is inconsistent with
the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge.
It doesn't mean that hunting is not allowed on Federal land. Hunting
is one of many permitted practices on wildlife refuges, and this rule
does not prevent hunting on any wildlife refuge. What is permitted on
refuges under this law is the indiscriminate killing of bears and
wolves in an attempt to boost populations of moose and caribou.
Unfortunately, this is exactly how Alaska has been managing its
wildlife since 1994 on State and private lands, when it adopted an
intensive management strategy for its wildlife that is specifically
designed to artificially reduce populations of predators so hunters
might have more prey, more animals to kill.
In Alaska, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State work together
to manage wildlife within the National Wildlife Refuge System. However,
when any State's wildlife management approach is in direct conflict
with the goals of the refuge system, the Federal Government has the
authority--indeed the obligation--to step in and ban certain practices.
This is exactly what the Fish and Wildlife did last year when they
issued their rule prohibiting this inhumane killing method on 16
Federal national wildlife refuges in Alaska.
It is important to note that the predator control practices I have
described, some of which are currently allowed on certain State and
private lands in Alaska, have never been allowed on national wildlife
refuges in Alaska. This rule simply clarifies that these practices--
even those explicitly authorized under State regulations in Alaska--are
never to be used on Federal wildlife lands in Alaska, regardless of
what is decided to be allowed under this State law.
I have heard concerns from my colleagues in Alaska that they believe
the Fish and Wildlife Service rule triggers a State sovereignty issue
by dictating which practices can and cannot be used on Federal refuge
lands in Alaska. However, I don't believe this rule conflicts with any
of Alaska's State sovereignty. The Fish and Wildlife Service has clear
statutory and constitutional authority to prohibit wildlife management
practices that are incompatible with the objectives of national
wildlife refuges in Alaska, as well as other States, including New
Jersey.
I have also heard the concerns of my Alaska colleagues that this rule
threatens the many Alaskans who rely on subsistence, hunting of deer,
moose, and caribou, to feed themselves and their families. I have
sympathy for that concern and believe again that this subsistence
hunting is not affected.
We know these predator control practices have never been done on
Alaskan refuges before. This argument makes no sense. It is not
affecting the subsistence hunting of deer and moose and caribou for
them to feed their families. It has never been allowed to go on in the
first place. How can these practices be necessary to preserve
subsistence hunting when they have never been done before on Federal
wildlife refuges? I want to be clear about something. Alaska is free to
manage its wildlife on State lands and private lands however Alaska
chooses. This point is not up for debate, not up for discussion. It is
not the subject of the Fish and Wildlife Services rule in question. The
rule only applies to federally owned and federally managed wildlife
refuge land, which must be managed for the benefit of the American
public, including the requirement to manage for national diversity of
wildlife.
As former Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe announced in a press
release in August, ``Whenever possible, we prefer to defer to the State
of Alaska on regulation of general hunting and trapping of wildlife on
national wildlife refuges unless by doing so we are out of compliance
with Federal law and policy. This regulation ensures that we comply
with our mandates and obligations.''
Let's move beyond talk of mandates and obligations. The hunting
practices banned by this rule are flatout inhumane. They are an
anathema to the type of thoughtful, humane wildlife management that
should be taking place on national wildlife refuges.
In a committee hearing, I asked management experts about this rule
last

[[Page S1879]]

week, and they agree that these practices were not necessary on
wildlife refuges. In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting
Director Jim Kurth--who was the former manager for many years of the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Northern Alaska--testified that the service
did not find that the practice prohibited by this rule was in any way
necessary.
Another witness, Brian Nesvik, Chief Game Warden with the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department--again, a Republican-invited witness--
testified that Wyoming has a different perspective on utilizing
national wildlife refuges in their State. The practices discussed in
this rule, he said, are not used in Wyoming's wildlife refuges, nor did
he make an appeal to use these inhumane practices because they are not
necessary. Killing a mother bear or mother wolf when she has young cubs
virtually guarantees that those cubs will not survive, creating the
potential for much broader negative impacts on the overall population.
The baiting of grizzly bears, which involves putting piles of food
out to attract bears in unusually high numbers at the start of hunting
season, is literally akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Bear baiting
often occurs when bears are desperately searching for those extra
calories to store energy for hibernation. It is an inhumane practice
and is recognized so by many experts.
The use of aircraft hunting--using a plane to track wild animals and
then landing to kill them--violates the principle of fair chase in
every sense of the word. In fact, killing wolves from aircraft or on
the same day that air travel occurred was already prohibited on refuge
lands prior to this new rule being issued. The new rule merely extends
that same protection to bears.
Finally, the use of snares--these are these choking traps--and steel
traps to kill the bear is a practice that is particularly troubling,
and I am not alone. A statewide poll of Alaskans themselves shows that
nearly 60 percent of Alaskans oppose trapping and snaring bears in
their State.
Charles Darwin called the leghold trap one of the cruelest devices
ever invented by man, stating:

Few men could endure to watch for five minutes an animal
struggling in a trap with a torn limb.
Some who reflect upon this subject for the first time will
wonder how such cruelty can have been permitted to continue
in these days of civilisation.

That was Charles Darwin decades and decades ago in 1863. I echo that
again today, more than 150 years later. Such cruelty should not be
permitted on Federal wildlife refuges of all places, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service was absolutely right to permanently protect bears from
such cruelty on Alaska's wildlife refuges.
I would like to take a few more moments to talk about the animals
that are subject to this rule. Grizzly bears and wolves are the top
predators in North America. Predators in any ecosystem play a critical
role in maintaining populations and in preventing problems like we have
actually seen in New Jersey by the overgrazing and disease that can
occur when deer, moose, and caribou grow in high numbers.
These charismatic animals also attract huge numbers of tourists to
national parks, refuges, and other wild lands in the United States. All
across the country, nearly 72 million Americans spend over $50 billion
on wildlife watching.
In Alaska, wildlife watchers outnumber hunters by nearly five to one,
and they also contribute more than four times as much money to the
State's economy as hunting does. Put another way, even considering the
issue from an economic perspective, these animals are worth far more
alive than they are dead, killed by these savage inhumane practices.
There are few values as deeply entrenched in the American culture as
conservation. This legacy is our American heritage, and the coexistence
of people, wildlife, and wild lands remains a key objective for our
public lands today.
Americans interact with nature in many different ways on public
lands, some through consumption uses, like hunting and fishing, and
others through more hands-off activities, like camping and wildlife
watching. No single use is more important and more valuable than
another. So public lands should be managed in a way that minimizes
conflict across those different uses while allowing for natural
diversity.
The Fish and Wildlife Service rule does just that. Our wildlife
refuges are not game parks, and they should not be managed as though
they are.
The cruel practices this rule prohibits--killing mother animals and
their babies and the trapping, snaring, baiting, and aerial hunting of
bears--are practices that I believe do not align with who we are as a
country. They are practices that have no place on our national wildlife
refuges in Alaska or any other State.
I want to close with something that my friend Senator Heinrich
already mentioned. Many people know that Teddy Roosevelt was an avid
hunter, a naturalist, a wildlife enthusiast. When he was President,
Roosevelt went on a bear hunting trip in Mississippi. Roosevelt's
hunting party cornered a Louisiana black bear. They tied it to a willow
tree and suggested the President shoot it.
Viewing this as an extremely unsportsmanlike way to kill a bear,
Roosevelt refused to do it. A political cartoonist heard the story and
drew a cartoon that celebrated President Roosevelt's decision. A
Brooklyn candy shop owner saw the cartoon and decided to create a
stuffed toy bear and dedicated it to the President, who refused to
engage in this kind of inhumane hunting of a bear. He called it a
``Teddy bear'' or ``Teddy's bear,'' and little children for generations
have been loving them ever since.
Teddy Roosevelt knew that using certain methods to kill animals was
immoral and wrong. We know this too.
With all of the issues going on right now--from healthcare to tax and
all of the issues and urgencies, such as infrastructure--why are we
about to consider a CRA that would literally, on our Federal lands,
allow the cruelest types of killing to go on of bears and wolves and
their pups in dens.
Why, with all that is going on, would we, as Americans, violate our
culture and history by allowing the most inhumane, cruel killing
practices to go on? Why, with all that we have to do, are we going to
allow this to happen?
Well, I will not support it, and I stand against it. Our national
wildlife refuges--our refuges for wildlife--have never allowed these
cruel practices, and we should not start now.
We should not CRA this rule. I stand strong and firm in honor of our
traditions and stand against this CRA.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I rise to speak in support of the
President's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who, right now,
is about two-thirds through his second day of hearings--better
described perhaps as a grilling.
Simply put, I think the President made an extraordinary selection.
Currently, Judge Gorsuch serves on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, which includes my home State of Kansas.
Our State has seen firsthand how Judge Gorsuch interprets the law. He
has had an outstanding judicial record while serving on the court. What
is more, he is highly respected and supported by individuals in the
judicial community who align on all sides of the political spectrum--
except, inexplicably, the U.S. Senate.
Judge Gorsuch's qualifications are not only noteworthy but extremely
impressive. He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law
School. He received a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford, as a
recipient of the Marshall Scholarship, one of the most prestigious
scholars programs in the country. He has litigation experience from his
time as a law partner, and he has clerked for not one but two Supreme
Court Justices.
Examining his record during his time on the Tenth Circuit gives us
some insight into the judge's approach to interpreting the law. When we
read his opinions, we know he is a judge who follows the law, applying
the text of the Constitution and statutes impartially. Of primordial
importance to this body is his critique of the executive branch's
tendency to assume the roles of the judicial and legislative branches.

[[Page S1880]]

No matter which political party controls the executive branch, this
body--the Senate of the United States--must protect its ability to
legislate and create laws. The Founding Fathers intended for the
separation of powers to remain inviolate.
Judge Gorsuch understands the role of the judicial branch and the
significance of maintaining that balance of power. He has made it
absolutely clear that he will not legislate from the bench. I repeat.
He has made it clear that he will not legislate from the bench. That
might just be the problem for those who would like to vote for a judge
who would legislate from the bench.
I, along with many of my colleagues here in the Senate today,
confirmed Judge Gorsuch over 10 years ago. Judge Gorsuch's record was
so noncontroversial, the Senate unanimously supported his nomination.
That includes the minority leader, Senator Schumer, and then-Senators
Obama, Clinton, and Biden.
I repeat. Judge Gorsuch has received support from across the entire
political spectrum. His judicial record over the past 10 years has made
him even more deserving of the Senate's full support.
The American people went to the polls in November, knowing the next
President would have the distinct honor of nominating the next Supreme
Court Justice. The American people have spoken. As the Senate, it is
now our responsibility to see through this nomination and appoint the
judge to the High Court.
The Wall Street Journal summed up what is happening within its
editorial page today in pointing out that Senators want Judge Gorsuch
to declare how he would vote in specific areas of the law--questions
that every Supreme Court nominee declines to answer. Quoting from the
editorial: ``At the 1967 hearings for Thurgood Marshall, then-Senator
Edward Kennedy called it a sound legal precedent that any nominee for
the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters which
are either before the court or very likely to appear before the
court.'' The Journal's editorial went on to say that in the 1993
confirmation hearings, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized: ``A judge
sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hints; for that
would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case,
it would also display disdain for the entire judicial process.''
I regret to say that profound advice apparently does not apply today.
One of my colleagues serving on the Judiciary Committee pretty well
summed up the dilemma we have in the Senate when he said to the judge:
``If you fail to be explicit and forthcoming, the committee would have
to assume his views were in line with Mr. Trump's.''
And there is the rub. Judge Gorsuch has written 789 opinions, with
only 15 dissents from other judges. The apparent burr in the minority's
saddle--the Democrats' saddle--has nothing to do with Judge Gorsuch or
his qualifications. The problem is that Mr. Trump is now President
Trump.
My question is this. All right, we know you feel that way. In every
committee hearing that we have, we know you feel that way. When will
this end? When will we get back to what is referred to as regular
order? That question lies squarely with my colleagues in the minority.
I am really disheartened to hear the rhetoric coming from across the
aisle in the days since the new President took office. The minority has
taken extraordinary lengths to extend the confirmation process of the
President's nominees--from shying away from our constitutional
responsibilities and not voting on nominees in committee hearings to
using unprecedented amounts of time to speak on this floor,
disapproving of the President and his nominees, or anything else. These
stall tactics are unbefitting of the world's greatest deliberative
body. We have fallen from bipartisan deliberation, worthy of public
opinion and support, to engaging with poisonous arrows of political
procrastination.
With the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, we now have an opportunity to
fix this sorry state of affairs. This is the opportunity we should
seize to restore comity to the Senate. The people of this great Nation
deserve nothing else.
I am hopeful that the minority will recognize the superlative
qualities Judge Neil Gorsuch possesses and provide him with a fair and
swift confirmation process.
That is not happening as of today. But hope springs eternal, even
within the Senate as it now exists.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, we are here to consider another joint
resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. This one,
H.J. Res. 69, repeals the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's regulation
and would allow extreme and inhumane hunting practices on National
Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.
My first concern about this measure is that it is a distraction. It
benefits special interests to the detriment of the American people at a
time when Congress should be focused on much more pressing issues.
Mr. President, 24 million Americans are at risk of losing their
healthcare. Clean air and clean water protections are threatened. The
President is proposing to cut Meals on Wheels, Head Start, the arts and
humanities, and the National Institutes of Health. Each day we learn
more details about the President and his team's connections to Russia
and about Russia's involvement in our elections.
The American people want Congress to work together to rebuild our
Nation's infrastructure and boost our economy. Instead, Congress is
wasting time and energy using the Congressional Review Act to repeal
commonsense rules that protect people, places, and iconic species.
These rules have been vetted over months and years through a thorough
public process, but if we repeal them using the CRA, these measures
will be permanently blocked unless Congress passes a new law directing
the government to act.
My second concern is just as serious. I support responsible hunting
practices. Many New Mexicans hunt for sport and for food, but the vast
majority of hunters also recognize that some practices are
counterproductive, unsportsmanlike, cruel, and they can even wipe out
species and the diversity of wildlife in certain regions. The Fish and
Wildlife's rule deals with that issue, and it carries Congress's
express direction that the Service protect natural diversity at
national wildlife refuges in Alaska.
We are talking about national wildlife refuges. These are the
country's refuges. The Service bars a few extreme practices for hunting
bears, wolves, and coyotes that are totally inappropriate on national
wildlife refuge land. These extreme practices include targeting and
killing black bears and brown bears and their cubs, and wolves and
coyotes and their pups during denning season; baiting Grizzly bears
with food so they are easier to kill at point-blank range; trapping
brown and black bears with steel-jawed traps that shut on the animal's
leg, leaving them to suffer indefinitely; and shooting bears from
aircraft or killing them same-day from spotting them with aircraft.
Many of these practices violate ``fair chase'' ethical standards
established and used by sportsmen across the country. Alaska voters
actually oppose these practices.
We are not talking about private hunting land. This is Federal refuge
land. Fish and Wildlife's rule is based on sound science and
appropriate wildlife management standards. The rule doesn't change or
restrict the taking of fish or wildlife for subsistence purposes, which
some Alaskans count on to feed their families, and it doesn't restrict
sport hunting. Fish and Wildlife's rule is not an anti-hunting rule. It
is a commonsense guideline that ensures bear and wolf populations, as
well as caribou, elk, and moose, are sustained for generations to come.
Let me reiterate that. Like the vast majority of New Mexicans, I
support hunting and sportsmen's access to public lands consistent with
State and Federal law and sound wildlife management practices. Fish and
Wildlife's rule

[[Page S1881]]

doesn't affect these uses at all in any way. Fish and Wildlife's rule
carries out Congress's intent in three longstanding pieces of
legislation that are now law: the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, or ANILCA; the 1966 National Wildlife Administration
Act; and the 1964 Wilderness Act. Importantly, none of these laws
prevents reasonable hunting. Together, those acts establish national
wildlife refuges and provide for their management, and they establish
the 76 million acres of national refuges in Alaska. Alaska accounts for
over 85 percent of our National Wildlife Refuge System, so this is not
a State or parochial issue. The rule governs the vast majority of
refuge lands designated for protection by Congress.
Again, none of these laws prevents reasonable hunting on national
refuges. National wildlife refuges are established for the benefit of
``present and future generations of Americans'' and for the whole
nation. Every American has an ownership stake in and a right to enjoy
public lands and the astounding scenic, cultural, and natural qualities
that make these places so special.
The first listed purpose of ANILCA is to ``conserve fish and wildlife
populations and habitats in their natural diversity.'' The words
``natural diversity'' are important to this discussion. My uncle,
Congressman Mo Udall, was the floor manager for the House when ANILCA
passed in 1980. On the House floor, he said the term natural diversity
meant ``protecting and managing all fish and wildlife populations
within a particular wildlife refuge system unit in the natural `mix,'
not to emphasize management activities favoring one species to the
detriment of another.''
He also said that in managing for natural diversity, Congress's
intent was to ``direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the best
of its ability . . . to manage wildlife refuges to assure that habitat
diversity is maintained through natural means, avoiding artificial
developments and habitat manipulation programs; to assure that wildlife
refuge management fully considers the fact that humans reside
permanently within the boundaries of some areas and are dependent . . .
on wildlife refuge subsistence resources; and to allow management
flexibility in developing new and innovative management programs
different from the lower 48 standards, but in the context of
maintaining natural diversity of fish and wildlife populations and
their dependent habitats for the long-term benefit of all citizens.''
Fish and Wildlife's rule carries out congressional intent by managing
the national refuges in Alaska for natural diversity through natural,
not artificial means, by continuing to allow for subsistence hunting,
and by managing the law for the benefit of all--exactly what
Representative Mo Udall said the act was intended to accomplish.
Maintaining natural diversity means promoting the health of all fish,
wildlife, and plants in the ecosystem, not favoring certain species and
harming others, and not interfering with natural ecosystems. Protecting
bears and wolves and other apex predators is essential. It helps
maintain predator-prey relationships and the health of Alaska's Arctic
and sub-Arctic ecosystems.
Federal and State laws overlay management of public lands, including
national wildlife refuges. State law on fish and wildlife management
applies on national refuge land as long as it is consistent with
Federal law. The Fish and Wildlife Service in the State of Alaska
worked together for years to manage fish and wildlife on Alaskan
refuges, and Federal requirements ensured that hunting was balanced
with conservation of wildlife and their habitat.
Alaska law did not conflict with Federal law until an Alaskan
administrative agency, the Alaska Board of Game, adopted rules allowing
for extreme hunting practices on national wildlife refuges within
Alaska's borders. The Board of Game said it targeted reduction of wolf,
black bear, and brown bear to increase the moose, caribou, and deer
populations for harvesting. But the indiscriminate killing of bears and
wolves to provide more game hunting is contrary to ANILCA. That law
directs the preservation of the ``natural diversity'' or ``natural
mix'' of wildlife. The Board of Game regulation allowing extreme
hunting practices is not consistent with the law.
As I said earlier, while the Fish and Wildlife's rule does not allow
extreme hunting practices, it does not change the rules for subsistence
hunting or sports hunting. It even authorizes a process for predator
control to benefit prey species and to meet refuge purposes. The
process is based on sound science, an evaluation of alternatives, and
an assessment of impacts to subsistence uses and needs. Again, Alaskans
don't support overturning the Service's rule to allow indiscriminate
killing of apex predators. A February 2016 Remington poll found that
Alaska voters oppose the extreme hunting practices banned under the
Fish and Wildlife's rule by wide margins. Alaska voters don't want to
see unsporting and cruel practices used to kill bears, wolves, and
coyotes on National Wildlife Refuges in their State.
Wildlife watching is an important part of Alaska's economy. Each
year, thousands of tourists visit Alaska's national wildlife refuges to
see iconic wildlife. According to a Fish and Wildlife report, wildlife
watching on the National Wildlife Refuge System contributed over $2
billion to Alaska's economy in 2011. That same year, hunting
contributed approximately $425 million.
Congress's repeated use of the Congressional Review Act with no
public hearing, no record or evidence, no use of science, and no
stakeholder involvement is a bad way to legislate. It makes government
opaque and inaccessible, and what people want to see is transparency
and openness, which we didn't have here. It caters to special interests
behind the scenes and outside of public view. It makes the swamp
murkier than ever.
Fish and Wildlife's rule carries out what Congress wanted when it
established the wildlife refuges--to conserve our wild American land
and wildlife for generations to come. The rule prohibits the most
extreme of hunting practices--against grizzlies and black bears and
their cubs and against wolves and coyotes and their pups--and protects
the natural diversity. We should not rush to undermine this important,
national, long-term goal for short-term political gain--to benefit
select special interests.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Honoring Deputy Shawn Anderson

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this weekend, the city of Baton Rouge was
reminded of how precious life is and of the harsh reality of law
enforcement officers putting their lives on the line to protect us.
On Saturday, March 18, 2017, this past Saturday, East Baton Rouge
Parish Sheriff's Deputy Shawn Anderson made the ultimate sacrifice
while he and a fellow officer were conducting a rape investigation in
Baton Rouge.
We honor Deputy Anderson's life and recognize him for his 18 years of
faithful service to East Baton Rouge Parish, the State of Louisiana,
and our Nation for his service and his having been enlisted in the U.S.
Army.
Deputy Anderson embodied public service--taking action to help those
in need. Deputy Anderson repeatedly put his life on the line to protect
the lives of others. He spent 12 years as a member of the SWAT team and
was recognized in 2014 for serving more than 60 high-risk warrants in
the previous year with there having been no injuries or shots fired.
Last year, Deputy Anderson added midwifery to his job description
after having delivered a child. With baby on the way and the hospital
out of reach, a Prairieville, LA, couple turned to Deputy Anderson for
help. In stopping before the hospital, with baby emerging, Anderson
successfully delivered a healthy child before turning over the
situation to arriving EMTs. A Louisiana family asked for his help, and
Deputy Anderson answered the call.
This is the latest in a string of law enforcement tragedies to
inflict our State. Since January 2016, Louisiana has lost 11 officers
and one K-9 in the line of duty. I will read their names:
Here you see Deputy Anderson. Here we have Police Officer Michael
Louviere, of the Westwego Police Department, aged 26; Police Officer
Jude Williams Lewis, of the New Orleans Police Department, aged 46;
Police Officer Shannon Matthew Brown, of the Fenton Police Department,
aged 40; Deputy Sheriff Bradford Allen Garafola,

[[Page S1882]]

Sr., of the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office, aged 45; Police
Officer Matthew Lane Gerald, of the Baton Rouge Police Department, aged
41; Corporal Montrell Lyle Jackson, of the Baton Rouge Police
Department, aged 32; Sergeant David Kyle Elahi, of the Sterlington
Police Department, aged 28; Deputy Sheriff David Francis Michel, Jr.,
of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, aged 50; Police Officer
Natasha Maria Hunter, of the New Orleans Police Department, aged 32;
Sergeant Derrick Morial Mingo, of the Winnsboro Police Department, aged
35; and K-9 Duke, of the Winnsboro Police Department.
Mr. President, thousands of men and women in law enforcement put on
the uniform, step into the community, and risk their lives daily to
keep us safe. Far too often, the price of this safety falls on these
officers and their families. Deputy Anderson represents the best of law
enforcement. He and his family deserve our admiration and support. His
sacrifice will be remembered. The prayers of a grateful State and
Nation are with his wife Rebecca, his daughter Delaney, and his son
Breland.
I yield to my colleague, Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I make it to Heaven--and I hope I do--
the first question I am going to ask God is why bad things happen to
good people. We have had some bad things happen in Louisiana to some
really good people, as my colleague from Louisiana just referred to.
This past weekend, while most of us slept, Louisiana lost yet another
officer in the line of duty. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office
Sergeant Shawn Anderson--as shown in this photograph here--was a law
enforcement veteran. He was a military veteran, and he was a father. He
served high-risk warrants. He had been recognized for doing his job
without having resorted to firing his weapon. In short, he was an
American hero, and he was a Louisiana hero.
On Saturday night, Sergeant Anderson was just doing his job. He went
into a barbershop in search of a suspected rapist. Sergeant Anderson
lost his life. A line of law enforcement vehicles escorted his body
from the scene, and their flashing blue lights lit up the dark night.
It has been a tough few months for our law enforcement families in
Louisiana. We have buried six officers who were shot and killed simply
because they were wearing a badge.
In January, Westwego Police Officer Michael Louviere stopped to help
at a traffic accident, and he was shot in the back of the head. Michael
was not even on duty. He was driving home and saw an accident and
immediately stopped his car to help. That is the kind of person he was.
The Presiding Officer and all of those listening to me today, no
doubt, saw the news footage as to what unfolded along a busy Baton
Rouge highway last summer. July will no longer be just about hot dogs
and fireworks for us in Louisiana. The shootings that took the lives of
three law enforcement officers shattered our summer and broke our
hearts.
Just a month earlier, Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Deputy David Michel
was shot three times in the back--not once, not twice, but three
times--and he died in Harvey. His killer, apparently, shot him because
the killer did not want to return to jail.
I would ask all of those who wish to, to join me in saying a prayer
for these law enforcement officers and their families. They were sons
and they were fathers and they are going to miss out on holidays and
birthdays and graduations. They were men who sacrificed their lives so
we could sleep a little bit better at night.
Let us also, while we are praying for these brave men--and, yes,
women too--pray for an end to the violence. We have had enough flashing
blue lights light up the dark nights in Louisiana.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the five Great Lakes are as vital to our
industrial heartlands as the Rockies are to the West or the Atlantic
coastline is to New England. Eighty-four percent of America's
freshwater is in the Great Lakes--84 percent. Around the globe, only
polar ice caps contain more freshwater than do these five Great Lakes.
Lake Erie is one of the biggest lakes in the world. From the boats
and barges that moved goods along the Ohio River and the Erie Canal to
the ships that leave Lake Erie and export grain and steel to the world,
my State of Ohio has a rich history of cultivating this vital natural
resource. In Ohio, families and businesses rely on Lake Erie. Its
waters are critical to farming and to clean energy development and
industry and regional economic competitiveness, to fishing and
recreation and so much that people do every day in my State.
From tourism in Catawba and Put-in-Bay, to fishing at Marblehead, to
vacations and family reunions at Maumee Bay State Park, Lake Erie
benefits our communities and creates jobs in our State, but for more
than a half century, keeping our lake healthy has been a constant
struggle. Lake Erie is the shallowest of the Great Lakes. In the
Western Basin off the shore of Toledo, it is only 30 feet deep--much
shallower in contrast with Lake Superior, which is 600 feet deep on
average.
I remember how polluted Lake Erie was when I was growing up. As a
child, it was obvious the water shouldn't look quite the way it looked.
While improvements have been made, today's problems are different and
in many ways more urgent.
Harmful algal blooms are a constant threat. Because the Western Lake
Erie Basin near Toledo is the shallowest part of the lake, it is
uniquely vulnerable to these blooms, the same way that much of Lake
Erie, 60 or 70 or 80 feet deep, is more vulnerable to pollution.
In August 2014, a bloom left 500,000 Ohioans in Lucas County in
Northwest Ohio, in the Toledo area, without safe drinking water for
nearly 3 days. We know these blooms are caused by excess nutrients in
our water. This comes from untreated sewage, it comes from urban
runoff, and it comes from farm field runoff. Heavy rains lead to more
combined sewage overflows, more nutrient runoff from our fields, and to
larger and more harmful algal blooms.
Algal blooms leave our lake looking like this. This may be a
beautiful painting in your living room or a striking photograph of
something, but this color here is more the regular, natural color of
Lake Erie, the dark here in the wake of this boat. This green is the
algal blooms, and you can see what this has done to pollute one of the
greatest bodies of freshwater in the world. Would you want to fish
there? Likely not. Would you take your children out on water that looks
like this? Of course not. Does this water look like what you want
coming out of your faucet when you turn on the faucet in Toledo or in
Lorain, where I lived for 10 years, or in Sandusky or Cleveland or
Ashtabula or any city along the Great Lakes?
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we

[[Page S1883]]

know that one effect of climate change in the Great Lakes region has
been a 37-percent increase in gully washers, or heavy rain events that
contribute to blooms. Hotter summers will only make these blooms worse.
The effects of algal blooms like that have profound effects on the
entire ecosystem.
Protecting our lake is one of the biggest environmental challenges
our country faces. We have made progress over the last 8 years, thanks
in large part to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. We have
continued to clean up Lake Erie and its tributaries, we have increased
access to the lake, and we have improved habitats for fish and wildlife
in the region.
Because it is shallow, this Great Lake, Lake Erie, only one of five
Great Lakes and the Great Lake with actually the least water--almost 50
percent of all the fish in the Great Lakes live in this Great Lake. So
you can see what these algal blooms do to aquatic life, to our way of
life when you have these kinds of algal blooms.
We know that the bipartisan Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is
working. As we celebrate Water Week this week, we should recommit
ourselves to strengthening this program and building on our success.
But in President Trump's budget proposal this week, the administration
proposed entirely eliminating this important program that has been so
successful--entirely eliminating this program that has been so
successful. It is basically a surrender to the algal blooms. It is the
administration--our country, if he speaks for our country--surrendering
and just saying: Give up; we are not going to make the fight.

We have cleaned up Lake Erie because of the Federal EPA, because of
the State EPA, because of the cities and the counties along the lake,
places like Toledo, Lorain, Sandusky, Cleveland, and my wife's hometown
of Ashtabula. We have cleaned it up, but it is a constant struggle
because so many people live along this very shallow, very vulnerable to
pollution Great Lake. That is why we don't give up.
We are not just talking about cutting funding for a program; the
administration budget completely cuts this program, completely ends it.
Taking an axe to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative will cost Ohio
jobs, jeopardize public health, and will put our drinking water at risk
and reverse the progress we have made. It is simply something you don't
do in a country like ours. It is unacceptable. I will fight like hell
to protect the Great Lakes, I will fight like hell to protect Lake
Erie, and I will fight like hell to protect the entire lake ecosystem.
The fact is, these five Great Lakes are a natural resource like none
other in the world. Here is what is at risk if the administration's
budget plan becomes a reality: Forty percent of the funds used to
protect the lake from Asian carp would just disappear like that; 1.8
million more pounds of phosphorus would enter the Lake, making algal
blooms like this more likely, just like that; and the cleanup of toxic
sediment in habitat restorations in some of our most polluted rivers
would grind to a halt. Why would they do this? Why would they eliminate
this program? Neither party here wants them to do this. Senator Portman
stands with me on this. Most of the Republican House Members stand with
Democrats like Congresswoman Fudge and Congresswoman Kaptur, who
represent much of the area along the Great Lakes.
There are projects across Ohio that simply couldn't take place
without this program. In Ashtabula, a cleanup project has removed
sediment containing 25,000 pounds of toxic material, transforming the
lower two-thirds of the Ashtabula River. A $61 million project never
would have gotten off the ground without the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative. Look at the new Lake Erie Bluffs Park in Perry Township--
they used $1.6 million from the initiative to leverage other sources of
funding to restore and protect this shoreline.
My Ohio colleagues of both parties have made it clear that zeroing
out the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is not an option and that
they will not stand for it.
It isn't just this initiative on the chopping block; the budget makes
deep cuts in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which
monitors these algal blooms. Scientists at Ohio State's Stone Lab play
a key role in protecting our lake, and the reported NOAA cuts would
nearly eliminate the grant funding that supports Stone Lab's mission. I
have been at Stone Lab. I see the work they do. I see the dedicated
dozen or so naturalists, not well-paid--Federal employees or State
employees not particularly well paid. They love nature, they love Lake
Erie, they love our State, they love its natural beauty, and they love
all that it does for us.
When I was young, people wrote off Lake Erie as a dying lake. It was
polluted, it smelled bad, and it looked bad. It was a dying lake. Over
the past century, people have had a habit of trying to write off my
State. We have proved them wrong time and again. The lake is improving.
It is supporting entire industries. It supports jobs. It provides
drinking water. It provides recreation. It is beautiful to look at from
my home in Lorain when I lived there. It is beautiful to look at
anywhere along the coastline of Lake Erie. We cannot allow this
President and we cannot allow Washington, DC, to write off Lake Erie
and the millions of Americans who rely on it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I will close on the issue of the CRA
before us today.
This CRA will turn back the clock on the management of native
wildlife on our Nation's wildlife refuges. Methods of take, like
shooting mother grizzlies with cubs, aerial gunning of wolves, killing
wolf pups in their dens--these are not 21st-century tools for wildlife
management. They are relics of the 19th century, before we truly
understood the importance of predators to healthy ecosystems and
populations. These practices have no place on our Nation's Federal
wildlife refuges.
This rule, frankly, doesn't stand up for subsistence hunters or
hunters at all; it simply reinforces the politically driven and
unscientific turn that the Alaska Board of Game has taken under
Governors like Sarah Palin. This isn't about hunting; it is about dogma
and dogma driving policy.
I urge all of my colleagues tonight to vote for fair chase hunting,
to vote for native wildlife, and to vote for our national wildlife
refuges. To do that, I ask you to vote against this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. 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

[[Page S1884]]

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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority time is yielded back.
All time is yielded back.
The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the
third time.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question
is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young

NAYS--47

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Isakson

The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 69) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

____________________