[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11095-S11098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to use the time that has been
allotted to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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.
[[Page S11096]]
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
[[Page S11097]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the time under morning business that has
previously been allotted has now expired.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend from Missouri
without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wanted to ask, I need about 5 minutes to
introduce a bill. I wanted to find out if my good friend from Montana
is going to wrap up; I didn't want to interfere. But if it would be
agreeable with him, and with the manager of the energy and water bill,
to briefly introduce a measure, I would ask my colleagues, if that
would accommodate them, if I could do that.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
I would point out that regular order is S. 442, and the motion to
proceed that has been agreed to. Anybody seeking recognition will have
to receive consent.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will yield, without losing my right to
the floor, to my good friend from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. No, I don't need the Senator to yield to me. I wonder,
when you are finished----
Mr. BAUCUS. I have 5 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Do you want to ask for 5 minutes?
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator might want to ask for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOND. I ask for 5 minutes following the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. When that is finished, I ask that I be recognized for 1
minute on a matter as if in morning business, and then to make a
unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana is recognized for up to 5 minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, as I mentioned, the State of Alaska is currently
evaluating various alternatives to improve transportation between these
two communities. One of the alternatives being studied is construction
of a 30-mile road that would cut through 8 miles of the Izembek
Wilderness and 3 miles of nonwilderness refuge lands.
You can tell from the map here, this is where the road would be. And
this is the area of wilderness that would be affected. From King Cove,
around the bay, up to Cold Bay. That is one alternative to be
considered. Again, it would cut through 8 miles of wilderness and 3
miles of nonwilderness refuge lands.
Section 126 of the bill establishes a 60-foot-wide swath through the
refuge for this road. In exchange, the bill adds 664 acres of adjacent
lands to the refuge.
The avowed primary purpose of this rider is to improve public access
to emergency medical services for the residents of King Cove. It is a
serious problem, one that affects people's lives and health. I do not
deny that. But this is also about increasing convenience for local
residents and enhancing regional economic development.
My State also has vast distances and remote communities, although not
as large a scale as in Alaska. So I am very sensitive to the concerns
of the people of Alaska and certainly of the views of the Senators from
Alaska.
However, I believe that the Izembek rider is the wrong solution to
the problem that occurs between King Cove and Cold Bay. First of all,
the rider establishes a very troubling precedent. Congress has never
authorized the construction of a road through a wilderness area,
certainly not as a rider to an appropriations bill. If we do so in this
case, it will be more difficult to hold the line in the future.
Second, this road would have serious environmental consequences. The
importance of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is internationally
recognized. It provides vital habitat to hundreds of thousands of
waterfowl, to
[[Page S11098]]
brown bears, and to caribou. Its location on the Alaska peninsula makes
the Refuge a critical resting and feeding ground for migratory
waterfowl that pass through Izembek each spring and fall.
This is a map which shows the migratory patterns of various waterfowl
and other birds, such as the Black Brant--the purple line here. They
stop here at Izembek. 100,000 Emperor Geese stop here in the spring and
fall; 150,000 Black Brant, 85,000 Canadian Geese, 150,000 Steller's
Eider, and about 31 species of shore birds. These are the Arctic
breeding grounds in the summer, and parts of the year they go south to
winter. It is a very important refuge.
This rider, I might say, would cut this Refuge in half. It would
fragment the coastal wetlands and tundra that are considered essential
to many of these species. It would destroy the character of the
wilderness area.
This, Mr. President, is the picture of a typical road in Alaska that
would be contemplated by this amendment. You can see what condition it
is in. This is a very good road. In comparison, this is a road that now
exists in part of the wilderness area. This is what is there now. This
is what would be contemplated. As you can tell, it is a pretty good
size road. It is no small little cow path.
Third, and perhaps most significantly, there are many ways to address
the legitimate transportation problems at King Cove without violating
the Izembek Refuge: Coast Guard air evacuation is one; better port
facilities and special marine ambulances are another; as well as
telemedicine and other medical advances. After all, in bad weather,
with high winds and blowing snow, a road can be very risky and often
impassable.
In fact, I might read a letter from the Anchorage Daily News. It is a
citizen, Tara P. Fuller, who is from Cold Bay. I will put it in the
Record, but her basic point is that this is ridiculous, this amendment,
this rider, which would allow this road. Because, she says, often this
road would be totally impassable with snowdrifts. When storms come, the
road would have to be plowed.
I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Road No Help In Bad Weather
Regarding the King Cove-to-Cold Bay ``Rescue Road in
Alaska'':
As a lifelong resident of this area, I have some great
concerns with the proposed legislation to grant a right of
way for a 27-mile road from King Cove to Cold Bay, 10 miles
of which would be in Izembeck National Wildlife Refuge and
seven miles of which would be in the wilderness area.
To say this road is the only alternative to the health and
safety issue is ridiculous. How could this possibly be true?
When we are having inclement weather, are we to believe a
vehicle could drive some 27 miles in whiteout conditions,
drifting snow and winds? I lived 3.2 miles out of the town of
Cold Bay for four years, with so-called ``road access'' to
Cold Bay, and during winter spent many days stranded either
at home or in town, depending on where I was when the storm
came. Drifting snow would be so bad, it would take days to
get the 3.2 miles of road plowed enough to be passable.
I would also like to say that during the 14 years I have
spent living in Cold Bay, I have yet to see the bay freeze
over, making a marine link with a breakwater/harbor the only
viable and obvious alternative to the road.
As Murkowski, Stevens and Young are trying to ramrod this
through Congress, I would like to see them show up in Cold
Bay and ask some of us Cold Bay residents how we feel instead
of assuming we also are in favor of this ``King Cove to Cold
Bay Road.''
Tara P. Fuller,
Cold Bay.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for 3 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. How long, Mr. President?
Mr. BAUCUS. Three minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for an
additional 3 minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. The State of Alaska is already evaluating various
alternatives and there is provision in the current transportation
appropriations bill, that the Senate passed in July, that adds $700,000
for the Corps of Engineers to study rural access issues in Alaska. That
is already in there. Alaska is now studying various alternatives that
affect rural access issues.
With these two studies out there, one by the State of Alaska and the
other by the Army Corps of Engineers, now is not the time to jump to
conclusions and pass a rider which authorizes the construction of a
road through a wilderness area.
I say, let's let the studies examine the evidence, let the studies
weigh the alternatives. Let's see if the road is, in fact, the best way
to meet the stated needs. It may be and may not be. But the fact of the
matter is, when you look a lot deeper into this, the real impetus
behind the road may not be emergency medical evacuation. That is not
the real driving force here. Really, it is that the folks there have an
economic interest in having a road.
I might say, too, that is true of many communities--not only in
Alaska, but other parts of the country. I understand those needs.
People move to and live in King Cove because they want to live there.
That is their home. That is their choice. There are ways to deal with
the medical needs that may arise, but I do not think it makes sense to
put in an appropriations bill a requirement that a road be built when
there are two outstanding studies looking at this issue to see what the
best way is to solve the access issue, particularly with respect to
emergency medical services.
Mr. President, with that I yield the floor. I see my good friend from
Missouri on the floor. I cannot, for the life of me, have any idea what
he is going to talk about, given the State he is from and given the
magnificent feat of one of his local citizens in the last few days,
with the number 70 behind it.
I very respectfully yield the floor so my good friend from Missouri
can address the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Montana. I also thank
the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee.
____________________