Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BAUCUS. In summation, I thank the Senator for the debate. It has been a good debate. We have been here, what, almost 5 hours. The Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Tennessee, both Senators from Alaska have argued this issue. I thank the Senator, again, for taking this issue up on the floor and not as a rider on the appropriations bill. That is the better way to make public policy. Mr. President, I don't think there are any more speakers on our side. We are ready to accept the amendment and at the appropriate time vote on the bill. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. No, no; the Senator asked----

Mr. BAUCUS. That was a rhetorical question.

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator asked me a question. I wonder if I could respond to it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Can I answer the Senator's question?

Mr. BAUCUS. May I answer the question?

Mr. BAUCUS. There may be a difference in the road. I don't know. One more point, in case folks haven't been listening to the entire debate: My view is there is a medical need. That is clear. According to the State of Alaska, it is no greater, or no worse, than the needs of other similar communities in Alaska. There are several studies. Two are going on to try to address the best solution. The studies are looking at not only determining the best of three routes-- air, water, road--but also trying to figure out how to increase the commercial viability of these communities. The real purpose here is to economic development. That is the driving force behind this road. To sum up, let's wait until the studies are completed. When they are completed, my guess is that we will find a better way to help the people in King Cove, and in a way that does not disrupt a very sensitive national wildlife refuge wilderness area where hundreds of thousands of birds stop over in the spring and in the fall to feed and store up food for the breeding grounds in the northern part of Alaska, or to fly south. The present occupant of the Chair wasn't here when I mentioned this earlier. These birds fly great distances. Some fly as far as Patagonia, if you can believe it, to the Izembek Refuge; to Patagonia and back again and up north to the Arctic regions in the summer to feed. I urge Senators, the better option is to wait for the study. This is a very serious matter--building a new road in a wilderness area. It might not be the best option for the area. But we should wait for the studies. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is a photograph of the so-called road here on the map. Cold Bay is down here, and there is a road that goes up here. It is sort of a road trail that would connect with the proposed construction road. This is a map of this road provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service. That is all I can tell the Senator.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the comments of the senior Senator from Alaska on the bill. His State and the people in King Cove and Cold Bay mean a lot to him, and they mean a lot to us. The junior Senator from Alaska mentioned, and perhaps even some of the residents of King Cove wonder, if we are concerned. I say to these King Cove residents, who are either in the gallery watching or listening elsewhere, all of us are as concerned about your safety--your medical safety and medical health--as the two Alaska Senators are. Obviously, we are; we are all Americans. It is my feeling that maybe the best way to achieve better medical evacuation and better safety for the residents of King Cove is to complete the study--the two studies, actually. One is by your State, the State of Alaska, which is vigorously trying to figure out the best way to address better access between King Cove and Cold Bay. They are looking at various options--air options, marine options, road options. They are looking at telemedicine. They are looking at all the various logical ways to try to solve the problem. We all know there is no silver bullet, no one alternative that is going to be the total solution to make sure that if anybody is ill or in an emergency situation in King Cove that he or she can immediately get the best possible care at a hospital in Anchorage, or even as far away as Seattle. There is none. So we have to find the right thing. The other study that will be conducted is a $700,000 study of Alaska access issues by the Army Corps of Engineers. The study is at least now in the transportation appropriations bill. So we have a lot of alternatives here. I think really it behooves all of us, including the residents of King Cove, to find the best option. We don't know yet what the best one is because it is a very difficult problem. It is difficult because of the residents' inaccessibility to Cold Bay and other parts of Alaska. The Senator from Alaska mentioned that I suggested helicopters. I did suggest that as one option, but not all the time. Many times, helicopters make no sense; for instance, when winds are blowing 85 miles an hour. I would not get in one then either. That is not a silver bullet. It is probably a combination of a lot of different things. No. 1, let's get the best solution and not rush to judgment and waste taxpayers' money by throwing two studies down the drain. Another point I want to make is that the effect of this bill would say we are going to build this road. Some say it is a dirt road, some say a gravel road. Well, it is a dirt road, a gravel road. But they are trying to convey the impression that it is pretty small, no big deal. Actually, it is a pretty big deal. According to the Alaska Assessment Study of Needs the road is intended to be used year-round, with an average of fewer than 400 vehicles per day, including tractor-trailers carrying freight. The Senator from Alaska questioned my assertion that freight could be hauled on this road. Well, I don't know. All I am saying is there is the contention, according to the State of Alaska study, that tractor- trailers would be hauled. The reason that is mentioned, frankly, is because of the fish processing plant--a very large one--in King Cove. It is one of the largest in the State of Alaska, where 30 million to 40 million pounds of fish are processed. Obviously, they would like to have this road to send the tractor-trailers on. This road would be designed for two-way traffic; it is not just a cow path. Again, at least the fish processing company would like to have this road. Some have suggested this is not the only time we have adjusted a wilderness boundary. Several references have been made to the State of Montana, where there was a road--well, there wasn't much of a road, I say to my good friend who is now on the floor. It was for 4X4s to go down to the lake to go fishing. And then Congress enacted a wilderness bill, and it included the road in the wilderness area. It was a mistake. Why did that mistake occur? I say to my good friend, probably because it wasn't much of a road. But it was a mistake. There was a preexisting kind of a road. Wilderness was created in the area, so the net result was that the road was in the wilderness area, that is true. But after we in the Congress recognized our mistake, we changed the designation so that the road could still be there. That is far different from this case we are talking about on the floor today. We are talking about the creation and building of a new road through wilderness--building a road through wilderness. That is a totally different situation. Now, I call it sleight of hand to say, oh, no, this is not a new road to the wilderness because we are taking this area out of wilderness and building this road through it. Obviously, if you look at the maps, there it is. The map says ``wilderness.'' You can see where the road would be, and it would be through a wilderness. I don't want to get too bogged down in all this, Mr. President. The fact of the matter is that our minds are pretty well made up. I think it is important to make it clear for the record what is happening here, what some of the other reasons are for what we are doing here. Here is a photo. For example, this is a road--if you can see it. It is the kind of road that would be constructed in this area. It is a typical, good-condition road in Cold Bay, AK. As you can see, two vehicles can get by each other. As you can see, trucks could travel this road; tractor-trailer trucks could certainly travel this road. On the other hand, this is the kind of road, if you will, that now exists in the wilderness. It has been mentioned that there are already roads in the wilderness. There really isn't much of a road. It is the kind in this photo here that exists in the wilderness. As you can tell, it is not much of a road. You could not travel on that year-round. Very few cars could travel on it. We are talking about the construction of a pretty good road, up to certain specifications, which is not a highway, it is not paved, but as you can tell by the map here, it is a pretty good, decent road. In my home State of Montana, that is a highway. It is not an interstate, but that is a pretty good road.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to point out what the State of Alaska study is really all about. I have here on this chart the basic purpose of the State of Alaska study--determining what the best solution would be in terms of access between King Cove and Cold Bay. Let me just show you what they are. The first purpose of this study is to reduce the infrastructure maintenance and operation burden. It doesn't say anything about medical needs or medical safety. The point here is that these are two separate communities, and some folks in both those communities think that maybe they should combine schools and have one school instead of two. After all, there are about 700 or 800 people in one community; that is, King Cove. There are about 100 folks, as I understand it, up around Cold Bay. Why not? It makes sense to maybe have one school, and maybe the same health care facility, and maybe share power generation or the public works facility. The Alaska report says that this will reduce the cost of living in these communities. The first purpose of the study is to reduce the cost of living in King Cove and Cold Bay. The second purpose is to improve safety and convenience of travel between King Cove and Cold Bay. That is No. 2. We talked a little bit about safety. You might note that point No. 2 says convenience--not just medical safety, but also convenience. The third purpose, I might add, Mr. President, is really the most interesting. The third purpose is to strengthen regional economic development. King Cove--that is on the lower part of the map--is a major hub of the fishing industry. It has extensive fish processing facilities. But it doesn't have an airport capable of handling large cargo planes. Cold Bay does. That is the big difference between the two. Cold Bay has no deep-water ports. King Cove is just the opposite: deep water, no airport. Therefore, the construction of a road between King Cove and Cold Bay would provide a significant economic benefit to the fishing industry and to the local economy. Let me read from the State of Alaska initial study: A stronger, more reliable transportation link between the two communities would facilitate the movement of fresh fish between King Cove docks and the marketplace, allowing fresh fish from the processing plants in King Cove to be on a plane bound for anywhere in the world within hours. The cost of shipping would decrease as would delays, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by transportation modes that are expensive, inconvenient and dangerous. This would open up new markets and increase the competitiveness of the Alaska fishing industry. And later the study notes that commercial fishermen support building the road because the road ``will provide the most economic, reliable, flexible and convenient means of moving their product to an airport''-- that is up in Cold Bay--``capable of supporting 747 operations.'' That is, airplanes, 747s. I can understand why the people down in King Cove would think a road is a good idea, to promote economic development. Again, the study says that improved transportation has three purposes--one is improving the infrastructure, the second is convenience and safety, but the third is economic development. Safety is only a very, very small part of the study here. We were led to believe it is about the only reason, but the fact is, the real driving force here is not safety. The real driving force here is to get fish that are processed down in King Cove up to the airport so they can improve market access around the world. Now, there is a huge processing plant down in King Cove. It is one of the largest in Alaska. That processing plant processes, I think it is about 38 to 40 million pounds of fish a year. The company is Peter Pan, which has the big processing plant down at King Cove. I am reading now from the study, the Alaska study: With improved access, major freight movements from King Cove to Cold Bay would likely consist of fresh fish and seafood from the Peter Pan plant. Discussion with Peter Pan's staff suggests that up to 5 percent of their product may move into the fresh market if good access is available to the Cold Bay airport. Although Peter Pan's total production volume is proprietary information, it is estimated their total product volume is in the 30- to 40-million pound range. Employing the 5-percent estimate provided by Peter Pan suggests that ultimately approximately 1.5 to 2 million pounds of fresh fish could move to Cold Bay annually. Packaging and jell ice would add an additional 15 percent, for a total gross weight of about 2 million pounds. I don't know how much you can put in a truck. Some say about 10,000 pounds. That means that if this road is built, there are going to be hundreds of trucks full of fish on this road to get out to the Cold Bay airport. This report also goes on to say that: Forthcoming individual fishing quotas for halibut and black cod, additional market efforts by Peter Pan could increase the amount by 25 to 50 percent within 3 to 4 years. So that is what is happening here --and I understand it; if I were in King Cove, I would want the same--a large fish processing plant wants to road-haul their product, about 2 million pounds of fish a year, to the airport. My calculation comes out to at least 200 trucks, maybe more, a year, and add to that all the other folks who are going to be traveling on this road. This is no small matter. This is not just emergency medical access to a hospital. That is not the issue at all. In fact, I have other data that show, again from the Alaska study, there have been no fatalities in air evacuation in the period of time studied; 95 percent got to the hospital from King Cove within 24 or 48 hours, 75 percent of the medevac transports from King Cove to Cold Bay had no delay. And I only use these dates, these periods, because that is the data in the Alaska study. I don't have any more current data or different data. Again, the data shows that with respect to medical evacuation to King Cove, January, mid-January, 1996 to near the end of June 1997, total medevacs were 20: No delay, 15; 3- to 4-hour delay, 4; 24-hour delay, 1. Not perfect but not too bad. And most of the air accidents that occur near King Cove have really little to do with medevac. There are other accidents that have occurred. And I might say, too, that Pen Air--an airline, probably a commuter airline, in Alaska--has about 1,800 flights a year between King Cove and Cold Bay--1,800 a year. So planes do fly in and out from the area; that is, King Cove to Cold Bay. The study also points out that there is no greater need for air emergency transportation here than in other places in Alaska--no greater need. That is in the Alaska study. Essentially, as I said, Pen Air now makes more than 1,800 one-way flights between these two communities each year, and they have had three accidents over 20 years. The State has concluded that the accident rate is still low and that-- this is the State's conclusion--``that the residents of King Cove are in no greater danger than other Alaskans who rely on air transport.'' So again to review, No. 1, the State is doing the study. There are many alternatives under review, and air evacuation is relatively safe. But there are other driving forces here that are pushing for the road, which brings me to my final point--the environmental impact of building a road through the Izembek Refuge and Wilderness. As has been noted, Congress has often adjusted wilderness boundaries. We have done it to correct mistakes. That is usually when we do it. We have adjusted wilderness boundaries because we have passed a wilderness bill and we made a mistake. We go back and adjust a boundary to correct the mistake. We have done it to accommodate preexisting uses that have been overlooked. That has happened a couple of times. We have also adjusted wilderness boundaries to provide access to inholders as required by law. But as far as I know, Congress has never authorized the construction of a road through a wilderness area to connect two points outside the wilderness area--never. So the passage of this bill would set a very important precedent. You would say it is OK to construct a road through a wilderness area connecting two points. The argument we are hearing is that this bill will not lead to the construction of a road through a wilderness area, because we'd be taking an area out of the wilderness, transferring it over to the refuge, then building the road through where the wilderness was and saying, gee, we are not building a road through a wilderness. Well, that is absurd on its face, Mr. President. Of course we are building a road through wilderness. On the map, as presented by my good friends on the other side, there is wilderness. There is a road through the wilderness. So we are building a road through wilderness. It is pretty simple. It is not rocket science. This is about a road through a wilderness. It is also through a very, very important wildlife refuge. Again, here is King Cove down here, and Cold Bay is up here. The road would go through this area. The wilderness section is right here. The proposal is to make this no longer wilderness and then build a road through it. Of course it is a road through wilderness. They say, just take these lands out of the wilderness. That is what the bill says. In exchange you get some other area. The use of the land in exchange, the net 580 acres, is land that is already restricted under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. So there is no gain here. The net effect of all this is still a road through a wilderness refuge system. That is the net effect here, that is what we are doing. Let me just address, briefly, why this is so important. We are now talking about a wilderness and refuge system that is extremely important. In fact, it is critical. It is critical resting and critical feeding ground for migratory waterfowl. It is absolutely critical. This is Alaska, Canada, United States and Russia. These are the Arctic breeding grounds. Let me back up. This little red dot here is the area we are talking about, the Izembek Wilderness area, the refuge wilderness area now in question. It is the major stopping ground for many, many birds. Why? It is very simple. Birds come up from the south. Let me mention what some of them are. One is the Black Brant, 150,000 land here in the spring and fall; the Emperor Goose, 100,000 in the spring and fall. Let me say, all of the world's Emperor Geese land here; all of them. All the world's Emperor Geese stop here at the Izembek Refuge and Wilderness. All the Pacific Black Brant stop there; all of them. Then there are Canadian Geese; 85,000 stop in the fall; Stellers Eider stop in the fall and winter. Shorebirds, 31 species, 300,000. ``Why do they stop there?'' you ask. What is so special about this location, this place? I will tell you what is so special. It is a wetlands. It provides food. These birds, amazingly, have flown, some of them, all the way to Australasia, a long way. And some of these birds go to Mexico. That is the Black Brant. The Canadian Geese go to the Pacific Northwest. Shorebirds fly as far away as Patagonia. Can you believe it? Birds that nest and stop off to feed and fatten up so they can fly, fly as far away as Patagonia and come back to Izembek Refuge. It is amazing. Basically, the birds come up, say, in the spring. They stop here to fatten up, to restore their energy after the long flight from the south. Then they go up further north. This is the breeding grounds up in the Arctic area where there is not as much food. It is good breeding grounds area, but there is not as much food. After the birds have bred, they fly south. They have to stop again here in the fall of the year when the summer is over to stock up again, get some food for that long flight to Patagonia, Australasia; these long, long flights. So this refuge is very, very important. Essentially, I would like to remind all of us really what is at stake here and what is happening; namely, No. 1, this bill is not needed. Why? Because there is a study going on, a study to try to find the best alternatives, what is right. No. 2, the driving force here is really commercial. That is the driving force. There is a very large fish processing plant down at King Cove. They want to get their fish to Cold Bay. I understand that, but it is not emergency medical evacuation. That is not the reason. And, No. 3, this road is going to very seriously disrupt these birds' nesting grounds. Why? If there is a processing plant down here and, as I mentioned--you do the calculations. According to the study from Alaska, there may be a couple of hundred trucks, at least added on, traffic back and forth, and then you could have more 747s. The Alaska study says the purpose of this is to fill 747s. That is what the Alaska study says, the 747s in Cold Bay. I might be wrong, I say to the quizzical look of my friend from Alaska, but that is what the study says: 747s. They may be wrong, but that is what the Alaska study says. So it is really to connect these two towns commercially, for convenience and so forth. That might be a good thing to do. It might not. Let's wait until we get the study and see what the study says. Remember, this is very serious business here. It is potentially setting the precedent, building the road connecting two areas outside of a wilderness area; that has never been done before. In addition to that, disrupting a very sensitive population of birds with 747s and other airplanes of that size flying in and out much more frequently, because of all the trucks going back and forth and often in very impassable conditions, because of snow conditions, it is going to cause a very significant effect on the wildlife there. I will just sum up and say I thank my friend from Alaska for bringing this up as a freestanding bill. These riders are a bit of a problem because they are riders, but as a freestanding bill we can talk about it and debate it. I appreciate the Senators taking good care of their State. This is something that some people in Alaska want. I understand that. But this is a national refuge. We are talking about a wilderness area. We are talking about a refuge area which belongs to all of us in the United States. I know the sensitivity that Alaskan Senators have. ``Here comes Uncle Sam all the time, here comes Secretary Babbitt, here comes the Fish and Wildlife Service. We in Alaska are told what to do by these outsiders.'' I understand a good bit of that because in my State of Montana, 30 percent of our lands are public lands and most of it is Federal. I understand that. So we have to find the right balance here, the right balance between the wishes of the residents of the State of Alaska as well as the national interest. My conclusion is the best balance between the two is let's wait for the studies. They will probably come up with some better ideas than we have already come up with so far today. We do not have to wait that long. The medevacs are working. There are all kinds of ways to address this. Let's let discretion be the better part of valor here and not adopt an amendment at this time. Wait a while and then get the best result there. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. If I might answer the Senator's question, I am not saying that, just because the roads in Montana are often impassable because of snow, the same must be true around King Cove. I am saying that is the opinion of a good number of residents. That is what they say, that very often snow conditions make the roads impassable.

Mr. BAUCUS. That has happened to me many times.

Mr. BAUCUS. When I finish I will. Let them conclude the study so the State can recommend what alternative makes the most sense. He also said, ``I don't know where the $700,000 is.'' It is in the transportation appropriations bill right now. It passed the Senate. The language is there. I don't want to get in tit-for-tat business. It is not productive. He made the statement implying maybe this Senator has no idea about bottom fishing in Alaska and what the economics are. I am actually getting my view--it is not my view, but I am reporting what the Alaska Intermodal Transportation Plan says. It has a statement on page 13 of its plan. This is dated October of 1994. I grant it is a few years old. Essentially, it says King Cove's economy is almost exclusively dependent upon fishing and fish processing. It has been a major fishing center in southwest Alaska for over 75 years. The salmon cannery has operated since 1911; crab processing since 1958; fish roe processing since 1960. In the seventies and eighties, the bottom fishing industry expanded. Peter Pan Seafoods is the largest employer, employing 250 to 300 persons in its cannery operation in King Cove. Commercial fishing accounts for approximately 100 jobs. It goes on to say that because of limited access, today the seafood market in King Cove is restricted. I am reporting from the Alaska report. It further provides that most product is sold directly to Peter Pan. Peter Pan now moves some fresh fish--fresh fish--into niche markets they have identified with low volumes. Without alternatives, commercial fishermen must settle for the going rate of about 35 cents to 40 cents a pound. It goes on to say it is estimated that with better access--that is most probably the road to Cold Bay--to fresh fish markets, the same fish could be sold at a price of upwards of 70 to 80 cents a pound, nearly double what fishermen now receive. It goes on to say essentially that this access would provide for a lot more fresh fish access in addition to the frozen. Basically, 5 percent of their processing production, which would be close to 2 million pounds a year, will be moved by road to an airport to fly directly to fresh fish markets. I am just answering the Senator by saying this is what the State of Alaska says. I take the Alaska Intermodal Transportation Plan at its word, but if they are incorrect, then I stand to be corrected. The point about whether this cuts into a wilderness area or not, it is pretty clear that this road we are talking about does. By the way, when the Senator showed a picture of the tundra, he said, ``Oh, there are no avalanches here.'' What he was not showing is sections of the road down here which bisects streams and mountain areas, that is where the avalanches would occur. They would not occur up closer to Cold Bay. But this road does cut this wilderness in half. This is the whole area, basically, we are talking about, where the waterfowl feed. This is the road that would go up here and down back around to Cold Bay. With truck traffic from the processing plant and the other traffic on the road, it is pretty clear it would bisect the area. It is constructing a new road in a wilderness. The Senator says that is not true. I think it is true, and I will let people decide for themselves whether it is true or not. I say it is true because here is the wilderness right now and there is the road. It looks like to me there is a road in the wilderness area. The response is, ``We will just take that out of wilderness and put the road there, and because we take the wilderness away, it is not a road in wilderness.'' That is too clever by half, Mr. President. We know what is going on here. It is a road in the wilderness. We have never done that. We have not constructed a road through wilderness from one point outside wilderness to another point outside wilderness. We have never done that; never. I recognize that we may have to do that. If the only option to provide medical care and emergency services is a road, but we don't know that yet. There are a lot of options being studied. I say let's let the State of Alaska complete its study, or the $700,000 the senior Senator from Alaska put in the appropriations bill to study rural access, then we will see. If it turns out we have to have this road, I will be one of the first Senators to stand on this floor and reconsider my position, but we are not there yet. I don't think we should take precipitous action today and prejudge by saying we have to build this road. Finally, on another point, the President will veto this bill if it passes. I hope it doesn't pass, but if it does pass, he will veto it. I ask unanimous consent that a statement of administration policy be printed in the Record. I will read the first sentence: The Administration strongly opposes S. 1092, and, if presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this has been a good debate. A lot of facts have come out. I might just note parenthetically, I chuckled a little bit. Here we are at the late stages of this debate. I concede to the Senator he has won the chart war. I have never seen so many charts in a debate in all my life. I acknowledge to the Senator he has a lot more charts than I have, and they are pretty good charts. Also, he has all that staff there. I see the army--there are about 10 back there on his side. He has won the staff war. We have only a couple or three on our side. He has won the chart war. He has won the staff war. And he has also won the time war. He has used a lot more time than we have. I will be very brief. Basically, there are a couple of points I want to make for the Record, for the Senator. He asked, very interestingly: Nobody has answered the point that the Secretary of the Interior, the refuge manager, basically controls this road. The fact is, in the bill itself there are provisions that the refuge manager--that is, the Secretary of the Interior--works with--I think it is the Aleutian Boroughs--to try to come up with a Joint Plan for the operation of the road. But the bill further provides, if no agreement is reached, that the borough controls. The borough can just decide within 24 months that that is what it wants to do. So it is not quite accurate to say this road is under the control of the Department of the Interior. The fact is, as a practical matter, maybe earlier, but certainly within 24 months, this road is under the control--if there is a road--of the State. The second point: The State of Alaska is not for this road. The State of Alaska takes no position on this road. We do not have any correspondence from the State of Alaska, particularly from the Transportation Department of the State of Alaska, saying we want this road, we support this bill. There is nothing that says, ``We support this bill.'' Rather, the State department takes no position. Let me just read what the Transportation Department of Alaska says: ``You have inquired about the status of our study efforts, etc.'' I will not read the whole letter. Basically, the letter concludes on page 2: Until the Transportation Needs Assessment and the Facilities Concept Report have been completed, we will not be in a position to propose the preferred alternative nor will we know how the King Cove-Cold Bay project is rated against other transportation projects. Therefore we have no position on the legislation currently pending in Congress. I think that is because that is a sound conclusion. That is why the State of Alaska, at least the department of transportation, takes that position because it makes sense. There is the basic study that is going on. It is an Alaska study. My good friend from Alaska says, ``Gee, we have enough studies here.'' My answer is, light a fire under the State; get them to conclude the study.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend from Missouri without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to use the time that has been allotted to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at some point soon the Senate must either return to the consideration of the Interior appropriations bill or else consider an omnibus bill that includes provisions relating to the appropriations for the Interior Department or, dare I say, at a time when perhaps the Interior appropriations bill would come to the Senate, not directly to the floor, but via a conference report, where the conference report is not debatable. But when any of those events occur, we are going to face the issue of antienvironmental riders which are currently in the Senate Interior appropriations bill. In anticipation of that debate, I will take some time this afternoon to explain why I and several of my colleagues intend to offer an amendment that would delete many of those riders. Three years ago, there was an attempt to fill appropriations bills with various riders--you know, those attachments that go on to appropriations bills that have virtually nothing to do with the bill-- riders that made very controversial changes to our Nation's environmental laws: riders that would weaken, for example, the Clean Water Act, weaken the Clean Air Act, slow down the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, and prevent the protection of any more endangered species. We all remember what happened. The President vetoed the bills, demanding that the riders be deleted. Congress refused. There was a standoff. The Government was shut down. A fierce public backlash occurred, not only against the Government shutdown, but also against the effort to lace appropriations bills with antienvironmental riders. After that, we seemed to have learned our lesson. Chairman Stevens urged us to ``get on with our work'' and get the appropriations bills passed. We pretty much did, keeping controversial riders out of most of the appropriations bills. A few weeks ago that changed. When we took up the Interior Department appropriations bill it became, as Yogi Berra said, ``deja vu all over again.'' The anti-environmental riders are back. The Interior appropriations bill that the Senate was considering just a short while ago is replete with controversial provisions that would weaken the protection of our environment and environmental laws, our water, our forests and parks, and our wildlife. The administration objects to about two dozen of the riders in this bill. It says it is an attempt to roll back environmental protection. The amendment that I and several other Senators plan to offer is much more focused. It strikes only eight of the most egregious antienvironment riders. Let me describe them. I will be brief because I and perhaps some other Senators will discuss each of these at a future date in more detail. The first rider locks in new and existing rulings for commercial fishing at Glacier Bay National Park, AK. It jeopardizes the protection of one of the crown jewels of our national park system. The second rider grants a right-of-way to build a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness, also in Alaska. For the first time ever, Congress would allow a road to be built through a wilderness area. The third rider prevents the Forest Service from decommissioning any of its authorized roads until it has dealt with every mile of unauthorized roads, the so-called ghost roads. This, in effect, would make it impossible for the Forest Service to manage the National Forest/Road System to protect public safety and the environment. The fourth and fifth riders prevent the Forest Service from revising any more forest lands until the Forest Service publishes comprehensive new planning rules. What is the effect of this? It would lock in old, outdated plans that no longer reflect how our citizens want their forests to be managed. The sixth rider requires the Forest Service to sell 90 percent of the allowable sale quantity of harvestable timber from one national forest, and one only. That is the Tongass, in Alaska. This would create a unique entitlement to take public timber from that one forest. The seventh rider prohibits the reintroduction of grizzly bears in Montana and Idaho, disrupting a locally oriented public process designed to answer the very question of whether and how reintroduction should occur.

Mr. BAUCUS. I have 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will yield, without losing my right to the floor, to my good friend from New Mexico.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized.

Mr. BAUCUS. I might say to my good friend I am about ready to wrap up this section. It will take maybe about 4 or 5 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. The eighth rider prohibits changes to the management and operation of any dam in the Columbia River Basin without congressional approval. That would override environmental laws, make it impossible to protect the salmon and other endangered species, and establish congressional micromanagement of one of the largest river systems in the world. I have been in the Senate for about 20 years. I like to think that I understand the appropriations process pretty well. And in some cases it is perfectly acceptable to make policy changes in an appropriations bill, for example, where there is a broad consensus or an emergency. I have supported provisions like that, and every Senator here has probably done the same. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a slew of riders that go way too far, making dramatic and controversial changes in our environmental laws. In some cases, the riders micromanage the agencies. In other cases, they substitute a one-size-fits-all Washington, DC, decision for a decision that balances national concerns with the concerns of local residents. In still other cases they improperly favor special interests at the expense of the national interests. Some Senators will no doubt disagree with my characterization of these riders. They will argue, well, this or that rider is good public policy, justified on the merits. As with most issues that we debate around here, there will be serious arguments on both sides. But that is part of the problem. There are serious arguments on both sides. Each of the riders involve important and complex natural resource issues. These issues require close attention and careful consideration as part of the regular legislative process. But instead, they have been tucked away in a 200-page appropriations bill, or what probably will be a much, much longer omnibus bill, that we are rushing to enact before the end of the fiscal year--only days away. And if rumors of an unamendable omnibus appropriations bill conference report are true, the Senate may never get to the debate or vote on any of these riders. It is, to my mind, not the way to do business. We all know what is going on. These riders cannot stand up on their own merits. They cannot stand up on their own merits in the full light of day. The public does not support them. And the President does not support them. So the advocates resort to an appropriations rider. This is not what people expect of us. Time and time again, folks back home tell us how upset they are with these kinds of riders. I hear it all the time. I am sure other Senators do, too. You know what? People are right. They certainly are in this case. There is another problem with these particular riders, and that is that they are a poison pill. They will kill the Interior appropriations bill. Let us not forget the Interior appropriations bill is an important bill for all States, but particularly for Western States like Montana. It provides funds for our national parks, our forests, wilderness areas, and other public lands. Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd and Senator Gorton have done a great job with all the other parts of the bill. I do not want to overlook that, not for a moment. They have worked very, very hard. And I commend them for it. Frankly, I do not understand how they do it, how they find the time or the patience of balancing all the competing interests-- funding our natural resource agencies, funding tribal programs that are so critical to Native Americans, resolving the controversy over the National Endowment for the Arts. They have done too much good work for us to allow these riders to sully and probably sink the bill. But that is what is going to happen. Let me talk a little bit about the official version of what the administration says, the bureaucratic version. The administration's statement on the bill says that because of inadequate appropriations levels and because of various riders, ``The President's senior advisers recommended that he veto the bill as represented to him in its current form.'' Now I will relate the practical version. We all know what this means: Unless this bill is cleaned up, it will be vetoed. And we will be back where we were 3 years ago, facing a veto, gridlock, political shutdown; furthermore, if these riders find their way into an omnibus appropriations bill they will only compound the mayhem, which will be an affront to open, responsible, representative government. I have great respect for my colleagues from Alaska and the State of Washington, the chairman of the committee and the subcommittee. They are good friends. They are good Senators. They are very good advocates. On the issues critical to the West, I am honored to work with them very closely. With due respect, however, I believe these riders go too far. They weaken environmental laws. They undermine sound stewardship of our natural resources. For that reason, these riders don't belong in the Interior appropriations bill. They don't belong in the omnibus bill, either. They should be deleted. When the time comes, I will offer an amendment to do just that. Mr. President, one of the riders that my amendment would delete is section 120 of the Interior Appropriations bill, which prevents the Park Service from limiting commercial fishing in Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska. I have a map of Glacier Bay National Park. Where is Glacier Bay? It is northwest of the Tongass Forest, in the southeastern part of Alaska. Glacier Bay National Monument was established in 1925 by a Presidential proclamation, expanded in 1939, and in 1980 it was redesignated as a National Park and Preserve by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Now, I haven't been there, but I understand it is one of the crown jewels of our National Park System. The area is basically all that is included within this pink line. This is all Glacier National Park and Preserve--one of the largest national parks, encompassing 3.3 million acres, including Glacier Bay here and the surrounding waters. Thousands of visitors come to the park each year for its tidewater glaciers, its abundant marine life, its scenery and outstanding wilderness qualities. A lot of tour boats come up here to visit the Johns Hopkins inlet here. It is hard to see this small photo in the upper right corner, so here is a larger copy of it. This is a photograph of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. This is a tour boat down here, and this is to give you an example of the spectacular scenery that occurs up in Glacier Bay. It also provides tremendous opportunities for scientists to study the marine environment, including the humpback whales. These creatures-- here is a photo of one in Glacier Bay--feed in the bay during the summer months. Commercial fishing has been illegal in the park since 1966. For many years that prohibition was not enforced, largely out of concern for the commercial fishermen. As a result, commercial fishing still occurs in and around Glacier Bay. Let me add that this issue is not about subsistence fishing in the Park. Fishing for personal use, whether by Natives or other local residents, is allowed in the park; the proposed rule by the Park Service would not change that. The real issue here is commercial fishing. Since 1966, there have been growing concerns about the effects commercial fishing was having on the Park, its unique natural resources, and on the hundreds of thousands of visitors to the Park each year. For example, in the late 1970s, the Park Service noticed a sharp decrease in the number of humpback whales that used the Park during the summer months. To help protect them, the Park Service prohibited commercial fishing in the bay for shrimp and other species on which whales feed. We will get the map of Glacier Bay up here again. It prohibited commercial fishing here within Glacier Bay. The Park also provides a unique refuge for hundreds of thousands of people who visit Glacier Bay each year. In the last 10 years, the number of visitors to the Park has doubled. Many of those visitors come to experience solitude and quiet and escape from modern civilization. Commercial fishing is inconsistent with that wilderness experience. In 1997, the Park Service tried to balance all the competing interests in the Park and proposed regulations that would allow commercial fishing in some areas, phase it out in other areas, and prohibit it altogether in a few other areas. More than a thousand written comments have already been received. I will tell you where it is allowed and where it is prohibited. Basically, commercial fishing will be phased out in the bay. It will be prohibited in several small inlets, and there are about five of them. It will be allowed just outside of the bay here, still within the line; that is, coastal fishing would still be allowed. At this point, I might say, Mr. President, that 70 percent of all the commercial fish are caught outside the bay, not inside the bay. So what I am really saying is, even though in 1966 commercial fishing was prohibited--and it has not been enforced since 1966--the new rule proposed by the Park Service would phase out commercial fishing over 15 years within the bay only, and it would allow fishing outside the bay, in the coastal area right along the land here. And a full 70 percent of the fishing is outside the bay. In the meantime, more than a thousand written comments have been received since the publication of the proposed rule. The comment period doesn't close until November. Final rules are due out next year. That is where the rider comes in. Section 120 of the appropriations bill prevents the National Park Service from finalizing the proposed rule. Worse, it even prevents the Service from enforcing existing prohibitions against commercial fishing in the Park, such as the prohibition adopted in 1985 to protect endangered humpback whales, as long as the fishing complies with State laws and regulations. I understand the concern that the Alaska Senators and others have that the fishermen and their families will be affected by these limitations on commercial fishing. But I believe the rider takes the wrong approach, for four reasons: First, Glacier Bay National Park is a very special place, like Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park in Montana. In fact, Glacier Bay National Park is our country's largest marine protected area, with over 600,000 acres of marine waters. That is nearly the size of Rhode Island. So we have to make an extra effort to protect the Park, its whales, seals, and sea lions, and the wilderness experience many visitors are seeking. Second, there are serious concerns about the effects of commercial fishing. For example, commercial shrimp harvesting can reduce the food supply for humpback whales. The Park is also an important laboratory for studying how natural marine ecosystems can function. But it is very difficult to study a natural system if it is being fished commercially--in this case, to the tune of 4 million pounds of fish each year. If the Park Service cannot finalize the new rules or even enforce the existing prohibition, then this rider will put at risk the Park's marine resources. Mr. President, I have a chart here that is a little wordy, and I apologize for that. It says, ``The Effects of Proposed Moratorium.'' First, the effect on natural resources. It will prevent the Park from achieving its purpose as a marine-protected area; it won't be protected anymore. It would also allow trawling and other commercial fisheries that have been prohibited since 1985. It would allow commercial fishing in a congressionally designated wilderness area. Second, it will also adversely affect scientific research because the park is a laboratory for scientific study. Finally, the rider prevents the Park Service from completing a fair and open planning and rulemaking process. It just says: This is it, folks. No rule. This is it. The rider will stop the Park Service from implementing a proposed rule to balance local, regional and national interests. The third reason I am opposed to this rule is that I think we need a balanced approach. We will have to see what is in the final regulation. We don't know what is going to be in it. But the proposed rule tries to balance the need to protect the Park's resources with the need to treat commercial fishermen fairly. Again, commercial fishing would be allowed outside the bay where 70 percent of the fish are caught. The proposed rule is balanced, I think, because it divides the area into three parts. It allows commercial fishing to continue in marine waters outside the bay itself. As I have already mentioned, that is out here. It does, though, phase out commercial fishing inside the bay over 15 years. And it closes five wilderness areas--including Beardslee Islands, Adams Inlet, Rendu Inlet, Hugh Miller Inlet Complex, and part of Dundas Bay--to commercial fishing in order to comply with the Wilderness Act because these areas, I believe, are within the wilderness system. On the other hand, I must point out the rider will allow commercial fishing anywhere in the Park, as long as it complies with State law. In effect, the rider would turn over management of the Park's fish resources to the State. Finally, the best way to get to a balanced solution, I think, is with lots of public input and review. The proposed rules have been developed through a fair, lengthy and open process, and with ample opportunity for public input. I will put up a chart that shows that. Since April 1997, this chart shows all of the procedures that have been followed to allow people to comment on the proposed rule. The public comment period has been extended several times, I might add. Over 1,200 written comments have been received to date, and there are still 2 months to go. Furthermore, there have been numerous workshops, open houses and hearings on the proposal. Again, were it not for the rider, the final rule would probably be in effect sometime in 1999. There have been many, many opportunities for people to comment. Putting all of this together, I believe the best approach is to delete the rider. That way the process of developing a balanced solution can continue and we can protect Glacier Bay National Park for future generations. Mr. President, I would now like to turn to another section of the Interior Appropriations bill. This is section 126, which authorizes a right-of-way for construction of a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness. Let me explain why I believe this rider should be deleted. The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is on the Alaska peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. It is a major stopover on the Pacific flyway. The Refuge was established in 1960 and is an internationally recognized refuge that provides vital habitat to hundreds of thousands of waterfowl, shore birds, and other migratory birds. It also serves as a key denning area for the Alaska brown bear, and a primary migration route for the southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou herd. In 1980, Congress designated most of the refuge as wilderness. This is a map of Alaska that gives you a sense of where the Izembek Refuge is located. We are talking about the Alaskan peninsula, and it would be basically right in here. This is a blown-up area of this part of the Alaskan peninsula. There are two communities in the vicinity of Izembek: Cold Bay up here and King Cove in the lower right of this map. King Cove has a population of about 800 people, and Cold Bay, a population of about 100. They are separated by approximately 20 miles of marine water. They are linked by commuter air service and by boats. However, in bad weather, emergency transportation by air from King Cove to Cold Bay is limited. The State of Alaska is currently evaluating various alternatives to improve transportation between these two communities, especially transportation for emergency medical treatment. That is going on right now.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. What is the Senate business at the conclusion of that time?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise on another issue. And depending upon whether the Senator from Vermont comes back, we will just kind of play this by ear on timing.