[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2989]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              OPPOSITION TO H.J. RES. 43 AND H.J. RES. 69

                                  _____
                                 

                            HON. KAREN BASS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 16, 2017

  Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, in order to attend a previously scheduled 
event I had to return to California; however, if I had been present 
today, I would have continued to voice my strenuous objects to the use 
of the Congressional Review Act to invalidate a seemingly endless 
number of agency rules. Today, I would express my opposition to and 
voted against H.J. Res. 43 and H.J. Res. 69. Use of the Congressional 
Review Act in the month of February to eliminate agency regulations 
thereby barring their return in substantially the same form as in some 
instances negated years of work on the part of agency officials, 
stakeholders, advocates, and the public. H.J. Res. 43 represents 
another vehicle to prevent families from having legitimate access in 
every state to the Title X program, which has been in effect for over 
40 years.
  Title X of the Public Health Services Act is the only dedicated 
source of federal funding for family planning. It provides grants to 
both nonprofit and public entities that, in turn, provide a wide range 
of both preventative and family planning services. These clinics have 
provided service to over 4 million men, women and children. The 
services include preconception health services, contraceptive care as 
well as breast and cervical cancer screenings and prevention. H.J. Res. 
43 would prevent the implementation of a final rule by the Department 
of Health and Human Services that would have ensured that these 
patients continued to have access to all qualified Title X providers.
  At a time when there has been a call to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act, which will result in 20 million Americans losing insurance, and 
negatively impact the benefits currently received by those with 
insurance and no viable replacement option being put forward. Our 
efforts should be spent addressing this issue. Instead, we are voting 
on a measure that will only serve to decrease access to health services 
that impact the long term health needs of families.
  As for H.J. Res. 69, it represents yet another effort to use the 
Congressional Review Act to undermine the efforts of stakeholders, 
advocates, and agencies to address an issue. The promulgation of the 
rule by the Fish and Wild Life Services addresses Non-Subsistence Take 
of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures. In effect 
the rule is designed to limit state sponsored and recreational killing 
of species like grizzly bears and gray wolves unless there is full 
compliance with existing federal law as well as compliance with the 
purposes of the refuge. At this time those who have opposed this rule 
have not provided a scientific bases or sound science as a basis for 
opposing the final rule issued by the Department of the Interior.
  For these reasons and more, I would have opposed H.J. Res. 43 and 
H.J. Res. 69.

                          ____________________