Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which undercuts an important rule meant to protect our public lands and the species that inhabit them.

The National Park Service has an important mission, which is ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects in the wildlife by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''

As a result of this mission, the National Park Service has implemented an important rule that protects a variety of species critical to the ecosystem in our national preserves in Alaska.

In 1994, Alaska did pass a law that undercut those efforts by allowing for extreme predator control, which led to fringe practices that could hardly be called traditional hunting.

Now, the other side may argue that this amendment is a States' rights issue, but that simply isn't true. These are Federal lands and are, therefore, subject to Federal regulation.

These national lands are intended to be enjoyed by all Americans, including those who visit and hope to have the rare opportunity to see bears and wolves in their natural habitat.

Now, to be clear, Mr. Chairman, the rule that this amendment aims to reverse is not intended to ban hunting in its entirety. The rule simply regulates that there be no use of bait, which has been as extreme as grease-soaked doughnuts and bacon, allowing for point blank shots, no use of artificial light to spotlight black bear dens, no killing sows or bear cubs, no killing pups or wolves and coyotes during the denning season, no hunting of big game that is swimming, no use of dogs to hunt big game, and no predator control simply for the purpose of increasing stocks for human consumption.

Now, these are reasonable regulations that prevent cruel hunting practices. Let us be very clear, Mr. Chairman, that reversing this rule would actually be thumbing our noses at the voices of tens of thousands
of citizens who took part in a public comment period process that was extensive.

Before the rule's adoption, the National Park Service held two separate comment periods which resulted in 26 public hearings, two teleconferences, and three tribal meetings. More than 70,000 public comments were received, and the majority of those supported the existing rule. Ignoring this process and the thoughtful public input would be a major slight to the democratic process and to everyone who participated.

These processes are in place to ensure that the voice of the people is heard, and circumventing this is unacceptable.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the gentleman's words taken down. The gentleman has already impugned my motives by saying that I don't know a damn thing about what I'm talking about.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

He's now called me ``young lady,'' and Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words be taken down.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from Alaska. I do accept your apology. I thank you for it. We have, obviously, some work to get to know each other. But I can tell you that I care about my State, as deeply as you do, and I look forward to getting to know you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, let me continue by saying that the reason I do feel strongly about this is I also believe that this amendment would be bad for the economy and for the people who depend on it.

Every year, wildlife watchers contribute more than $2 billion toward the economy. According to the National Park Service, in 2016, 2.8 million park visitors spent an estimated $2.8 billion in local gateway regions while visiting National Park Service lands in Alaska. These expenditures supported a total of 18,900 jobs, $644.7 million in labor income, $1.1 billion in value added, and $1.9 billion in economic output in the Alaska economy.

I do believe--and the reason I am speaking up so strongly about this, we all have very strong perspectives on all sides. I do believe that we must do everything we can to preserve our natural lands and their inhabitants, particularly as climate change takes its toll all over the country and the world. In my home State of Washington, which I care deeply about, wildfires are destroying thousands of acres of land and threatening homes, while across the country residences of Houston are reeling from Hurricane Harvey and Floridians brace for Hurricane Irma.

We need to invest in our public lands for all Americans so that generations in the future can continue to enjoy the beauty that our country has to offer.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source