[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 31100]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2754, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 18, 2003

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Chairman of the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee, Mr. Hobson and the ranking member, Mr. 
Visclosky for their good work on this bill. This conference report 
deserves the overwhelming support it is about to receive.
  I do want to bring attention to one provision in this bill that has 
not received the scrutiny it deserves. Section 115 is an affront to our 
nation's environmental laws. It was not included in either the House or 
Senate bills and was added in conference. The provision waives all 
environmental laws and directs the construction of a road from the 
village of King Cove, Alaska through the sensitive Izembek National 
Wildlife Refuge and right to the boundary of the fragile and 
internationally significant Izembek Wilderness Area.
  Specifically, Section 115 directs the Corps of Engineers to build a 
road proposed in one Alternative from a draft Environmental Impact 
Statement prepared to evaluate several modes of transportation between 
the villages of King Cove and Cold Bay, Alaska. The Environmental 
Protection Agency has raised significant concerns with the alternative 
mandated by Section 115. The Corps of Engineers is still reviewing 
public comment on the draft EIS.
  The King Cove Access Project first surfaced as legislation in 1998. 
Proponents attempted to add the provision to an appropriations bill 
that year but were not successful. A compromise was reached later that 
year with the King Cove Health and Safety Act which was included as 
Section 353 of Public Law 105-277, the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The measure appropriated $40 
million to address the access needs of the communities of King Cove and 
Cold Bay; however, the Act did not approve a road through the Izembek 
refuge or the Izembek Wilderness. In fact, the legislation specifically 
required that expenditure of the funds allocated in the bill ``must be 
in accordance with all other applicable laws.''
  Five years after a satisfactory compromise was agreed upon, this 
rider inappropriately short-circuits the public process. An 
administrative decision on a project to enhance marine-road access for 
the community of King Cove is proceeding in a timely manner and does 
not require intervention by Congress. However, the King Cove Access 
Project mandates one alternative in the EIS, thereby effectively 
ignoring the advice of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, other federal 
agencies and the American public.
  Section 115 is an affront not only to public process, but also to our 
nation's environmental laws. Unlike the King Cove Health & Safety Act, 
which is subject to national environmental laws, the King Cove Access 
Project is ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' It is 
inappropriate to exempt the Izembek refuge from federal environmental 
laws in this manner.
  The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, on the Alaska Peninsula, is 
internationally recognized as one of the most important wetland 
reserves in the Northern Hemisphere. Home to threatened and endangered 
species, as well as millions of migratory birds, the Izembek National 
Wildlife Refuge and Izembek Wilderness are keys in the fight to 
conserve the natural diversity of wildlife populations and habitats. A 
road through the refuge will inevitable damage the refuge's critically 
important habitat.
  The King Cove Access Project ignores environmental laws, threatens 
important wildlife habitat and sets a dangerous anti-wilderness 
precedent. The 17-mile road proposal is not compatible with the 
purposes of the refuge, as established by ANILCA, or with the 
Wilderness Act. The King Cove Access Project rider is terrible policy 
and terrible process.

                          ____________________